What can damage a lich in an antimagic field?Does every damage type have a way to deal nonmagical damage?Does ki count as magic for the purpose of an antimagic field, or is it only fluff?Pact of the Blade and Antimagic FieldsCan Catapult's target be in an antimagic field?Effects of Non-Damage Spells (Antimagic Field) on CRIs this Library-encounter balanced?Pact of the Blade and Antimagic FieldsIs this homebrew mechanoid race balanced?Under what circumstances does an antimagic field suppress the casting of a spell?Is a shield guardian affected by demonic madness in the Out of the Abyss adventure?Can a non-magical “Detect Magic”-type trait sense magic when used within an Antimagic Field?What damaging options does a lich have while in an anti-magic field?
Is there a reason behind the 'Ending' joke?
Is It Possible to Make a Virus That Acts as an Anti-virus?
Does Australia produce unique 'specialty steel'?
one-liner vs script
Little Endian Number to String Conversion
What does IKEA-like mean?
Can you decide not to sneak into a room after seeing your roll?
Slow coworker receiving compliments while I receive complaints
How to remind myself to lock my doors
'Cheddar goes "good" with burgers?' Can "go" be seen as a verb of the senses?
Test if two food are the same
Why is the intercept changing in a logistic regression when all predictors are standardized?
Modern warfare theory in a medieval setting
What kind of tools would be used to carve bone?
What can I do to avoid potential charges for bribery?
Is there a way to make a Minor key sound "less dark"?
From Plate to State
Is data science mathematically interesting?
D&D Monsters and Copyright
Suspicious crontab entry
Chain with double bond or triple bond
What is joint estimation?
Can you be promoted and then fired for-cause? (Performance)
Why didn't Kes send Voyager home?
What can damage a lich in an antimagic field?
Does every damage type have a way to deal nonmagical damage?Does ki count as magic for the purpose of an antimagic field, or is it only fluff?Pact of the Blade and Antimagic FieldsCan Catapult's target be in an antimagic field?Effects of Non-Damage Spells (Antimagic Field) on CRIs this Library-encounter balanced?Pact of the Blade and Antimagic FieldsIs this homebrew mechanoid race balanced?Under what circumstances does an antimagic field suppress the casting of a spell?Is a shield guardian affected by demonic madness in the Out of the Abyss adventure?Can a non-magical “Detect Magic”-type trait sense magic when used within an Antimagic Field?What damaging options does a lich have while in an anti-magic field?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
An antimagic field spell makes magical weapons into normal weapons for purposes of attack. Magical spells also lose their effects.
A lich is listed as having damage immunities to: Poison; Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing From Nonmagical Attacks. Liches also have condition immunities to: Charmed, Exhaustion, Frightened, Paralyzed, and Poisoned.
The only effects that penetrate an antimagic field are artifacts and effects from deities. Given the immunities of a lich, this seems to leave only fire and acid as a way to damage liches apart from artifacts and deities.
However, Jeremy Crawford previously wrote, "Antimagic field has no effect on a creature's immunities, unless those immunities are sustained by magic."
Are a lich's immunities "sustained by magic" as described by Crawford and go away in an antimagic field? More generally, apart from artifacts, deities, and fire, what can damage a lich in an antimagic field?
dnd-5e monsters combat damage antimagic-field
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
An antimagic field spell makes magical weapons into normal weapons for purposes of attack. Magical spells also lose their effects.
A lich is listed as having damage immunities to: Poison; Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing From Nonmagical Attacks. Liches also have condition immunities to: Charmed, Exhaustion, Frightened, Paralyzed, and Poisoned.
The only effects that penetrate an antimagic field are artifacts and effects from deities. Given the immunities of a lich, this seems to leave only fire and acid as a way to damage liches apart from artifacts and deities.
However, Jeremy Crawford previously wrote, "Antimagic field has no effect on a creature's immunities, unless those immunities are sustained by magic."
Are a lich's immunities "sustained by magic" as described by Crawford and go away in an antimagic field? More generally, apart from artifacts, deities, and fire, what can damage a lich in an antimagic field?
dnd-5e monsters combat damage antimagic-field
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Somewhat related: Does every damage type have a way to deal nonmagical damage?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
8 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
An antimagic field spell makes magical weapons into normal weapons for purposes of attack. Magical spells also lose their effects.
A lich is listed as having damage immunities to: Poison; Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing From Nonmagical Attacks. Liches also have condition immunities to: Charmed, Exhaustion, Frightened, Paralyzed, and Poisoned.
The only effects that penetrate an antimagic field are artifacts and effects from deities. Given the immunities of a lich, this seems to leave only fire and acid as a way to damage liches apart from artifacts and deities.
However, Jeremy Crawford previously wrote, "Antimagic field has no effect on a creature's immunities, unless those immunities are sustained by magic."
Are a lich's immunities "sustained by magic" as described by Crawford and go away in an antimagic field? More generally, apart from artifacts, deities, and fire, what can damage a lich in an antimagic field?
dnd-5e monsters combat damage antimagic-field
$endgroup$
An antimagic field spell makes magical weapons into normal weapons for purposes of attack. Magical spells also lose their effects.
A lich is listed as having damage immunities to: Poison; Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing From Nonmagical Attacks. Liches also have condition immunities to: Charmed, Exhaustion, Frightened, Paralyzed, and Poisoned.
The only effects that penetrate an antimagic field are artifacts and effects from deities. Given the immunities of a lich, this seems to leave only fire and acid as a way to damage liches apart from artifacts and deities.
However, Jeremy Crawford previously wrote, "Antimagic field has no effect on a creature's immunities, unless those immunities are sustained by magic."
Are a lich's immunities "sustained by magic" as described by Crawford and go away in an antimagic field? More generally, apart from artifacts, deities, and fire, what can damage a lich in an antimagic field?
dnd-5e monsters combat damage antimagic-field
dnd-5e monsters combat damage antimagic-field
edited 8 hours ago
NautArch
80.6k16 gold badges312 silver badges528 bronze badges
80.6k16 gold badges312 silver badges528 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
PraxitelesPraxiteles
5,2693 gold badges32 silver badges116 bronze badges
5,2693 gold badges32 silver badges116 bronze badges
$begingroup$
Somewhat related: Does every damage type have a way to deal nonmagical damage?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
8 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Somewhat related: Does every damage type have a way to deal nonmagical damage?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Somewhat related: Does every damage type have a way to deal nonmagical damage?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Somewhat related: Does every damage type have a way to deal nonmagical damage?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
8 hours ago
add a comment
|
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The lich retains its immunities but can still be damaged
The lich's immunities are not sustained through a magical effect or spell which are what anti-magic field suppresses. They are inherent to the lich and are not mentioned as being "magical".
That said, there are still ways to damage a lich, for example Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing damage that is not from an attack. For example, the catapult spell may work (discussed here) or fall damage. Also as user @guildsbounty points out, objects falling onto the lich will also work, perhaps you could make the ceiling collapse. Another method is non-magical elemental damage which is available through various features and items such as alchemists' fire. This answer to the question "Does every damage type have a way to deal nonmagical damage?" shows ways for PC's to have non-magical elemental damage.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I'm not sure Catapult would work. If the magical bit goes away when it enters the AMF and the object hits the lich, then you've got non-magical bludgeoning and that immunity.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@nautarch Oh right! That's a great point
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Class abilities and certain items
Alchemist's fire, vials of acid and holy water are all non-magical items which can cause damage the lich does not have immunity to.
Certain classes gain abilities that can allow them to damage a lich even inside of an antimagic field. Some examples:
Monk's at 6th level gain the Ki-Empowered Strikes ability which makes their unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of bypassing damage resistance and immunity. This is not actually a magical ability so the AMF won't stop it.
Clerics who have the life domain gain the Divine Strike ability at level 8 which makes their weapon attacks do extra radiant damage.
Paladins gain Improved Divine Smite at level 11 which gives them extra radiant damage on their melee attacks.
Warlocks with the Fiend pact gain Hurl Through Hell at level 14 which can send the lich through the lower planes and make them take psychic damage on their return.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I'm not sure how "counts as magical" means isn't magical for AMF. Ki empowered strikes are specifically covered in this question and guessing some others are also effected in AMF.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
The language used tells you as much. If Ki empowered strikes were magical it would simply say they are magical. Since it says "counts as magical" it means they are treated as have the benefit of being magical for damage resistance/immunity, but they aren't actually magical.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
If it counts as magical, that seems like it's magical.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Both answers to the question "Does ki count as magic for the purpose of an antimagic field, or is it only fluff?" explain that Ki-Empowered Strikes would be suppressed.
$endgroup$
– Medix2
3 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
There are a few skills/class features that should still work
For instance, a 6th level monk gets "Ki-Empowered Strikes" which:
Starting at 6th level, your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
Similarly, the Warlock's Pact of the Blade:
You can use your action to create a pact weapon in your empty hand. You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it (see chapter 5 for weapon options). You are proficient with it while you wield it. This weapon counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
Even the lowly Beast Master Ranger, at 7th level gains Exceptional Training:
Beginning at 7th level, on any of your turns when your beast companion doesn't attack, you can use a bonus action to command the beast to take the Dash, Disengage, or Help action on its turn. In addition, the beast's attacks now count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
All of these examples are not magical so they won't be suppressed, but will still overcome resistance and immunity.
I know this list is not exhaustive, but should be a good starting point.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'm not sure how "counts as magical" means isn't magical for AMF. Ki empowered strikes are specifically covered in this question and guessing the others are also effected in AMF.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
The language says, "counts as magical". If it were magic, it would say so. This is also off a JC tweet which are no longer considered as rule. This was never added to the Sage Advice
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Right, and it says counts as magical...so, magical.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
But sounds like you or Alan Mills should submit a new answer to the ki question.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Medix2 Look at it this way. The Rangers Beast is clearly not magical. It's just a beast with deep ties to the Ranger. But the 7th level ability uses the exact same wording of "count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage". The beast is not magical, their claws (hooves, etc) are not magical, but their attack counts as magical. Why would the other skills use the exact same wording if they are different from the Ranger feature which has no magic? In fact, the only magic mentioned anywhere in the whole skill in during bonding.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f157139%2fwhat-can-damage-a-lich-in-an-antimagic-field%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The lich retains its immunities but can still be damaged
The lich's immunities are not sustained through a magical effect or spell which are what anti-magic field suppresses. They are inherent to the lich and are not mentioned as being "magical".
That said, there are still ways to damage a lich, for example Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing damage that is not from an attack. For example, the catapult spell may work (discussed here) or fall damage. Also as user @guildsbounty points out, objects falling onto the lich will also work, perhaps you could make the ceiling collapse. Another method is non-magical elemental damage which is available through various features and items such as alchemists' fire. This answer to the question "Does every damage type have a way to deal nonmagical damage?" shows ways for PC's to have non-magical elemental damage.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I'm not sure Catapult would work. If the magical bit goes away when it enters the AMF and the object hits the lich, then you've got non-magical bludgeoning and that immunity.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@nautarch Oh right! That's a great point
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
The lich retains its immunities but can still be damaged
The lich's immunities are not sustained through a magical effect or spell which are what anti-magic field suppresses. They are inherent to the lich and are not mentioned as being "magical".
That said, there are still ways to damage a lich, for example Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing damage that is not from an attack. For example, the catapult spell may work (discussed here) or fall damage. Also as user @guildsbounty points out, objects falling onto the lich will also work, perhaps you could make the ceiling collapse. Another method is non-magical elemental damage which is available through various features and items such as alchemists' fire. This answer to the question "Does every damage type have a way to deal nonmagical damage?" shows ways for PC's to have non-magical elemental damage.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I'm not sure Catapult would work. If the magical bit goes away when it enters the AMF and the object hits the lich, then you've got non-magical bludgeoning and that immunity.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@nautarch Oh right! That's a great point
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
The lich retains its immunities but can still be damaged
The lich's immunities are not sustained through a magical effect or spell which are what anti-magic field suppresses. They are inherent to the lich and are not mentioned as being "magical".
That said, there are still ways to damage a lich, for example Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing damage that is not from an attack. For example, the catapult spell may work (discussed here) or fall damage. Also as user @guildsbounty points out, objects falling onto the lich will also work, perhaps you could make the ceiling collapse. Another method is non-magical elemental damage which is available through various features and items such as alchemists' fire. This answer to the question "Does every damage type have a way to deal nonmagical damage?" shows ways for PC's to have non-magical elemental damage.
$endgroup$
The lich retains its immunities but can still be damaged
The lich's immunities are not sustained through a magical effect or spell which are what anti-magic field suppresses. They are inherent to the lich and are not mentioned as being "magical".
That said, there are still ways to damage a lich, for example Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing damage that is not from an attack. For example, the catapult spell may work (discussed here) or fall damage. Also as user @guildsbounty points out, objects falling onto the lich will also work, perhaps you could make the ceiling collapse. Another method is non-magical elemental damage which is available through various features and items such as alchemists' fire. This answer to the question "Does every damage type have a way to deal nonmagical damage?" shows ways for PC's to have non-magical elemental damage.
edited 6 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
Medix2Medix2
14.3k2 gold badges54 silver badges137 bronze badges
14.3k2 gold badges54 silver badges137 bronze badges
2
$begingroup$
I'm not sure Catapult would work. If the magical bit goes away when it enters the AMF and the object hits the lich, then you've got non-magical bludgeoning and that immunity.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@nautarch Oh right! That's a great point
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
2
$begingroup$
I'm not sure Catapult would work. If the magical bit goes away when it enters the AMF and the object hits the lich, then you've got non-magical bludgeoning and that immunity.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@nautarch Oh right! That's a great point
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
I'm not sure Catapult would work. If the magical bit goes away when it enters the AMF and the object hits the lich, then you've got non-magical bludgeoning and that immunity.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm not sure Catapult would work. If the magical bit goes away when it enters the AMF and the object hits the lich, then you've got non-magical bludgeoning and that immunity.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@nautarch Oh right! That's a great point
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@nautarch Oh right! That's a great point
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Class abilities and certain items
Alchemist's fire, vials of acid and holy water are all non-magical items which can cause damage the lich does not have immunity to.
Certain classes gain abilities that can allow them to damage a lich even inside of an antimagic field. Some examples:
Monk's at 6th level gain the Ki-Empowered Strikes ability which makes their unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of bypassing damage resistance and immunity. This is not actually a magical ability so the AMF won't stop it.
Clerics who have the life domain gain the Divine Strike ability at level 8 which makes their weapon attacks do extra radiant damage.
Paladins gain Improved Divine Smite at level 11 which gives them extra radiant damage on their melee attacks.
Warlocks with the Fiend pact gain Hurl Through Hell at level 14 which can send the lich through the lower planes and make them take psychic damage on their return.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I'm not sure how "counts as magical" means isn't magical for AMF. Ki empowered strikes are specifically covered in this question and guessing some others are also effected in AMF.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
The language used tells you as much. If Ki empowered strikes were magical it would simply say they are magical. Since it says "counts as magical" it means they are treated as have the benefit of being magical for damage resistance/immunity, but they aren't actually magical.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
If it counts as magical, that seems like it's magical.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Both answers to the question "Does ki count as magic for the purpose of an antimagic field, or is it only fluff?" explain that Ki-Empowered Strikes would be suppressed.
$endgroup$
– Medix2
3 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Class abilities and certain items
Alchemist's fire, vials of acid and holy water are all non-magical items which can cause damage the lich does not have immunity to.
Certain classes gain abilities that can allow them to damage a lich even inside of an antimagic field. Some examples:
Monk's at 6th level gain the Ki-Empowered Strikes ability which makes their unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of bypassing damage resistance and immunity. This is not actually a magical ability so the AMF won't stop it.
Clerics who have the life domain gain the Divine Strike ability at level 8 which makes their weapon attacks do extra radiant damage.
Paladins gain Improved Divine Smite at level 11 which gives them extra radiant damage on their melee attacks.
Warlocks with the Fiend pact gain Hurl Through Hell at level 14 which can send the lich through the lower planes and make them take psychic damage on their return.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I'm not sure how "counts as magical" means isn't magical for AMF. Ki empowered strikes are specifically covered in this question and guessing some others are also effected in AMF.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
The language used tells you as much. If Ki empowered strikes were magical it would simply say they are magical. Since it says "counts as magical" it means they are treated as have the benefit of being magical for damage resistance/immunity, but they aren't actually magical.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
If it counts as magical, that seems like it's magical.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Both answers to the question "Does ki count as magic for the purpose of an antimagic field, or is it only fluff?" explain that Ki-Empowered Strikes would be suppressed.
$endgroup$
– Medix2
3 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Class abilities and certain items
Alchemist's fire, vials of acid and holy water are all non-magical items which can cause damage the lich does not have immunity to.
Certain classes gain abilities that can allow them to damage a lich even inside of an antimagic field. Some examples:
Monk's at 6th level gain the Ki-Empowered Strikes ability which makes their unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of bypassing damage resistance and immunity. This is not actually a magical ability so the AMF won't stop it.
Clerics who have the life domain gain the Divine Strike ability at level 8 which makes their weapon attacks do extra radiant damage.
Paladins gain Improved Divine Smite at level 11 which gives them extra radiant damage on their melee attacks.
Warlocks with the Fiend pact gain Hurl Through Hell at level 14 which can send the lich through the lower planes and make them take psychic damage on their return.
$endgroup$
Class abilities and certain items
Alchemist's fire, vials of acid and holy water are all non-magical items which can cause damage the lich does not have immunity to.
Certain classes gain abilities that can allow them to damage a lich even inside of an antimagic field. Some examples:
Monk's at 6th level gain the Ki-Empowered Strikes ability which makes their unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of bypassing damage resistance and immunity. This is not actually a magical ability so the AMF won't stop it.
Clerics who have the life domain gain the Divine Strike ability at level 8 which makes their weapon attacks do extra radiant damage.
Paladins gain Improved Divine Smite at level 11 which gives them extra radiant damage on their melee attacks.
Warlocks with the Fiend pact gain Hurl Through Hell at level 14 which can send the lich through the lower planes and make them take psychic damage on their return.
edited 4 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
Allan MillsAllan Mills
7,0891 gold badge10 silver badges48 bronze badges
7,0891 gold badge10 silver badges48 bronze badges
1
$begingroup$
I'm not sure how "counts as magical" means isn't magical for AMF. Ki empowered strikes are specifically covered in this question and guessing some others are also effected in AMF.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
The language used tells you as much. If Ki empowered strikes were magical it would simply say they are magical. Since it says "counts as magical" it means they are treated as have the benefit of being magical for damage resistance/immunity, but they aren't actually magical.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
If it counts as magical, that seems like it's magical.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Both answers to the question "Does ki count as magic for the purpose of an antimagic field, or is it only fluff?" explain that Ki-Empowered Strikes would be suppressed.
$endgroup$
– Medix2
3 hours ago
add a comment
|
1
$begingroup$
I'm not sure how "counts as magical" means isn't magical for AMF. Ki empowered strikes are specifically covered in this question and guessing some others are also effected in AMF.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
The language used tells you as much. If Ki empowered strikes were magical it would simply say they are magical. Since it says "counts as magical" it means they are treated as have the benefit of being magical for damage resistance/immunity, but they aren't actually magical.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
If it counts as magical, that seems like it's magical.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Both answers to the question "Does ki count as magic for the purpose of an antimagic field, or is it only fluff?" explain that Ki-Empowered Strikes would be suppressed.
$endgroup$
– Medix2
3 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I'm not sure how "counts as magical" means isn't magical for AMF. Ki empowered strikes are specifically covered in this question and guessing some others are also effected in AMF.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm not sure how "counts as magical" means isn't magical for AMF. Ki empowered strikes are specifically covered in this question and guessing some others are also effected in AMF.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
The language used tells you as much. If Ki empowered strikes were magical it would simply say they are magical. Since it says "counts as magical" it means they are treated as have the benefit of being magical for damage resistance/immunity, but they aren't actually magical.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
The language used tells you as much. If Ki empowered strikes were magical it would simply say they are magical. Since it says "counts as magical" it means they are treated as have the benefit of being magical for damage resistance/immunity, but they aren't actually magical.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
4 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
If it counts as magical, that seems like it's magical.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
If it counts as magical, that seems like it's magical.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Both answers to the question "Does ki count as magic for the purpose of an antimagic field, or is it only fluff?" explain that Ki-Empowered Strikes would be suppressed.
$endgroup$
– Medix2
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Both answers to the question "Does ki count as magic for the purpose of an antimagic field, or is it only fluff?" explain that Ki-Empowered Strikes would be suppressed.
$endgroup$
– Medix2
3 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
There are a few skills/class features that should still work
For instance, a 6th level monk gets "Ki-Empowered Strikes" which:
Starting at 6th level, your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
Similarly, the Warlock's Pact of the Blade:
You can use your action to create a pact weapon in your empty hand. You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it (see chapter 5 for weapon options). You are proficient with it while you wield it. This weapon counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
Even the lowly Beast Master Ranger, at 7th level gains Exceptional Training:
Beginning at 7th level, on any of your turns when your beast companion doesn't attack, you can use a bonus action to command the beast to take the Dash, Disengage, or Help action on its turn. In addition, the beast's attacks now count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
All of these examples are not magical so they won't be suppressed, but will still overcome resistance and immunity.
I know this list is not exhaustive, but should be a good starting point.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'm not sure how "counts as magical" means isn't magical for AMF. Ki empowered strikes are specifically covered in this question and guessing the others are also effected in AMF.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
The language says, "counts as magical". If it were magic, it would say so. This is also off a JC tweet which are no longer considered as rule. This was never added to the Sage Advice
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Right, and it says counts as magical...so, magical.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
But sounds like you or Alan Mills should submit a new answer to the ki question.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Medix2 Look at it this way. The Rangers Beast is clearly not magical. It's just a beast with deep ties to the Ranger. But the 7th level ability uses the exact same wording of "count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage". The beast is not magical, their claws (hooves, etc) are not magical, but their attack counts as magical. Why would the other skills use the exact same wording if they are different from the Ranger feature which has no magic? In fact, the only magic mentioned anywhere in the whole skill in during bonding.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
There are a few skills/class features that should still work
For instance, a 6th level monk gets "Ki-Empowered Strikes" which:
Starting at 6th level, your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
Similarly, the Warlock's Pact of the Blade:
You can use your action to create a pact weapon in your empty hand. You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it (see chapter 5 for weapon options). You are proficient with it while you wield it. This weapon counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
Even the lowly Beast Master Ranger, at 7th level gains Exceptional Training:
Beginning at 7th level, on any of your turns when your beast companion doesn't attack, you can use a bonus action to command the beast to take the Dash, Disengage, or Help action on its turn. In addition, the beast's attacks now count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
All of these examples are not magical so they won't be suppressed, but will still overcome resistance and immunity.
I know this list is not exhaustive, but should be a good starting point.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'm not sure how "counts as magical" means isn't magical for AMF. Ki empowered strikes are specifically covered in this question and guessing the others are also effected in AMF.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
The language says, "counts as magical". If it were magic, it would say so. This is also off a JC tweet which are no longer considered as rule. This was never added to the Sage Advice
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Right, and it says counts as magical...so, magical.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
But sounds like you or Alan Mills should submit a new answer to the ki question.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Medix2 Look at it this way. The Rangers Beast is clearly not magical. It's just a beast with deep ties to the Ranger. But the 7th level ability uses the exact same wording of "count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage". The beast is not magical, their claws (hooves, etc) are not magical, but their attack counts as magical. Why would the other skills use the exact same wording if they are different from the Ranger feature which has no magic? In fact, the only magic mentioned anywhere in the whole skill in during bonding.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
There are a few skills/class features that should still work
For instance, a 6th level monk gets "Ki-Empowered Strikes" which:
Starting at 6th level, your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
Similarly, the Warlock's Pact of the Blade:
You can use your action to create a pact weapon in your empty hand. You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it (see chapter 5 for weapon options). You are proficient with it while you wield it. This weapon counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
Even the lowly Beast Master Ranger, at 7th level gains Exceptional Training:
Beginning at 7th level, on any of your turns when your beast companion doesn't attack, you can use a bonus action to command the beast to take the Dash, Disengage, or Help action on its turn. In addition, the beast's attacks now count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
All of these examples are not magical so they won't be suppressed, but will still overcome resistance and immunity.
I know this list is not exhaustive, but should be a good starting point.
$endgroup$
There are a few skills/class features that should still work
For instance, a 6th level monk gets "Ki-Empowered Strikes" which:
Starting at 6th level, your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
Similarly, the Warlock's Pact of the Blade:
You can use your action to create a pact weapon in your empty hand. You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it (see chapter 5 for weapon options). You are proficient with it while you wield it. This weapon counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
Even the lowly Beast Master Ranger, at 7th level gains Exceptional Training:
Beginning at 7th level, on any of your turns when your beast companion doesn't attack, you can use a bonus action to command the beast to take the Dash, Disengage, or Help action on its turn. In addition, the beast's attacks now count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
All of these examples are not magical so they won't be suppressed, but will still overcome resistance and immunity.
I know this list is not exhaustive, but should be a good starting point.
answered 4 hours ago
MivaScottMivaScott
7,9371 gold badge23 silver badges57 bronze badges
7,9371 gold badge23 silver badges57 bronze badges
$begingroup$
I'm not sure how "counts as magical" means isn't magical for AMF. Ki empowered strikes are specifically covered in this question and guessing the others are also effected in AMF.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
The language says, "counts as magical". If it were magic, it would say so. This is also off a JC tweet which are no longer considered as rule. This was never added to the Sage Advice
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Right, and it says counts as magical...so, magical.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
But sounds like you or Alan Mills should submit a new answer to the ki question.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Medix2 Look at it this way. The Rangers Beast is clearly not magical. It's just a beast with deep ties to the Ranger. But the 7th level ability uses the exact same wording of "count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage". The beast is not magical, their claws (hooves, etc) are not magical, but their attack counts as magical. Why would the other skills use the exact same wording if they are different from the Ranger feature which has no magic? In fact, the only magic mentioned anywhere in the whole skill in during bonding.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I'm not sure how "counts as magical" means isn't magical for AMF. Ki empowered strikes are specifically covered in this question and guessing the others are also effected in AMF.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
The language says, "counts as magical". If it were magic, it would say so. This is also off a JC tweet which are no longer considered as rule. This was never added to the Sage Advice
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Right, and it says counts as magical...so, magical.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
But sounds like you or Alan Mills should submit a new answer to the ki question.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Medix2 Look at it this way. The Rangers Beast is clearly not magical. It's just a beast with deep ties to the Ranger. But the 7th level ability uses the exact same wording of "count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage". The beast is not magical, their claws (hooves, etc) are not magical, but their attack counts as magical. Why would the other skills use the exact same wording if they are different from the Ranger feature which has no magic? In fact, the only magic mentioned anywhere in the whole skill in during bonding.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm not sure how "counts as magical" means isn't magical for AMF. Ki empowered strikes are specifically covered in this question and guessing the others are also effected in AMF.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm not sure how "counts as magical" means isn't magical for AMF. Ki empowered strikes are specifically covered in this question and guessing the others are also effected in AMF.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
The language says, "counts as magical". If it were magic, it would say so. This is also off a JC tweet which are no longer considered as rule. This was never added to the Sage Advice
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
The language says, "counts as magical". If it were magic, it would say so. This is also off a JC tweet which are no longer considered as rule. This was never added to the Sage Advice
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Right, and it says counts as magical...so, magical.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Right, and it says counts as magical...so, magical.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
But sounds like you or Alan Mills should submit a new answer to the ki question.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
But sounds like you or Alan Mills should submit a new answer to the ki question.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Medix2 Look at it this way. The Rangers Beast is clearly not magical. It's just a beast with deep ties to the Ranger. But the 7th level ability uses the exact same wording of "count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage". The beast is not magical, their claws (hooves, etc) are not magical, but their attack counts as magical. Why would the other skills use the exact same wording if they are different from the Ranger feature which has no magic? In fact, the only magic mentioned anywhere in the whole skill in during bonding.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Medix2 Look at it this way. The Rangers Beast is clearly not magical. It's just a beast with deep ties to the Ranger. But the 7th level ability uses the exact same wording of "count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage". The beast is not magical, their claws (hooves, etc) are not magical, but their attack counts as magical. Why would the other skills use the exact same wording if they are different from the Ranger feature which has no magic? In fact, the only magic mentioned anywhere in the whole skill in during bonding.
$endgroup$
– MivaScott
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f157139%2fwhat-can-damage-a-lich-in-an-antimagic-field%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Somewhat related: Does every damage type have a way to deal nonmagical damage?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
8 hours ago