9
\$\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?

\$\endgroup\$
6
\$\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\$
  • 5
    \$\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 Oct 2 '19 at 19:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ @nautarch Oh right! That's a great point \$\endgroup\$ – Medix2 Oct 2 '19 at 19:11
4
\$\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\$
  • 2
    \$\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 Oct 2 '19 at 21:58
  • 1
    \$\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 Oct 2 '19 at 22:01
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ If it counts as magical, that seems like it's magical. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Oct 2 '19 at 22:38
  • 3
    \$\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 Oct 2 '19 at 22:50
0
\$\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 Oct 2 '19 at 21:58
  • \$\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 Oct 2 '19 at 22:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ Right, and it says counts as magical...so, magical. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Oct 2 '19 at 22:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ But sounds like you or Alan Mills should submit a new answer to the ki question. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Oct 2 '19 at 22:39
  • 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 Oct 2 '19 at 23:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.