2
\$\begingroup\$

Spells like Conjure Animals and Web can conjure creatures (a wolf) or objects (a sticky web). While the conjuration itself is magical (it was created by a spell), the effects of a conjuration are not necessarily magical. For example, this answer to "Do attacks from Conjure Animals creatures count as magical?" explains why an attack from a conjured owl is nonmagical.

According to the standard criteria, It seems like most effects caused by conjurations are nonmagical. For example, slipping on a pool of grease created by the Grease spell seems nonmagical:

  • Is it a magic item? No, it's a pool of grease
  • Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description? No, it's a pool of grease
  • Is it a spell attack? No, it's a pool of grease
  • Is it fueled by the use of spell slots? No, it's a pool of grease
  • Does its description say it’s magical? No, it's a pool of grease

However, a similar argument could be applied to evocation spells, like Spirit Guardians and Wall of Fire. But intuitively, the effects a wall of fire (and most evocations spells) should be magical.

Are the effects of a creature or object created by conjuration magic always nonmagical? For example, does a creature with magic resistance get advantage on save against falling grease?

  • If so, does a similar argument apply to evocation spells?
  • If not, how do we determine which conjurations can have nonmagical effects?
\$\endgroup\$
6
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ What is the use-case here? Or in other words, why does it matter whether grease (or some other effect) is magical or non-magical? I think some specific examples would help make this clearer \$\endgroup\$ May 8, 2020 at 20:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think this is related: "Is there a distinction between magical damage and nonmagical damage?" \$\endgroup\$ May 8, 2020 at 20:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Medix2 As a concrete example, I'm curious how Grease interacts with magic resistance / limited magic immunity. \$\endgroup\$
    – Joshua
    May 8, 2020 at 21:17
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I think you need to reign in your question a bit. As it stands, it would have to be a case-by-case check of every spell. For instance, Grease has no damage component so does it really matter if it's magical or not? \$\endgroup\$
    – MivaScott
    May 8, 2020 at 22:01
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Miva It matters for those who have advantage against saving throws from spells and magical effects \$\endgroup\$ May 8, 2020 at 22:16

1 Answer 1

1
\$\begingroup\$

You are wrong about the Grease

Specifically:

  • Is it a spell? Yes.

The description states “Slick grease covers the ground ...”. This is an artefact of the spell, it is not mundane grease summoned by the spell because it has none of the properties of grease beyond slipperiness; for example, you can’t burn it or pick it up and put it in a jar.

Contrast this with Conjure Animals which says “You summon fey spirits ...”. These are real, existing, non-magical spirits that the magic of the spell summons.

The spirits called forth by Spirit Guardians are “called forth”. This is ambiguous - are these pre-existing ones summoned like the ones in Conjure Animals or created and fuelled by the magic? Because it’s a concentration spell I lean to them being magical but other DMs could legitimately go the other way.

Wall of Fire is definitely magical. There is no question that you have non-magical fire that just happens to form a wall shape.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Where you get the idea that you cannot burn or pick up gRease from? The spell doesn't say that it can't burn or be picked up… \$\endgroup\$ May 9, 2020 at 1:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Pleasestopbeingevil because of the convention that spells only do what they say they do. If the spell said it could be ignited for XdY damage then it could; but it doesn’t so it can’t. \$\endgroup\$
    – Dale M
    May 9, 2020 at 3:24
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Ah, I think you are misunderstanding that principle. The spell doesn't say it can be ignited, so you can't rely on it being igniteable. The spell also doesn't say it can't be ignited so you can't rely on it being unigniteable. Like all un(der)specified aspects of spells, your GM has to come up with the answers to those questions for any given campaign/world. \$\endgroup\$ May 9, 2020 at 6:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ Your argument seems circular to me: the grease is magical because it is not mundane grease, and the grease is not mundane because it is magical. \$\endgroup\$ Oct 25, 2022 at 13:34

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .