13
\$\begingroup\$

An Antimagic Field (PHB, p213) creates an area

[...] divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse. Within the sphere, spells can't be cast, summoned creatures disappear, and even magic items become mundane.

But,

Spells and other magical effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity, are supressed in the sphere and can't protrude into it. [Emphasis mine.]

To what extent is divine magic supposed to be 'created by a deity'? To the extent that it is unaffected by an Antimagic Field?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie Understood. Thanks for clarifying! \$\endgroup\$ – RichardJ Sep 30 '16 at 17:58
12
\$\begingroup\$

There is a distinction between a spell, and a spell effect. Deities directly grant their worshipers spells, but not spell effects—the worshipers themselves still need to cast the spell, that is, finish it, to create the spell effect. Though most of the heavy lifting has been performed by a deity, the actual effect in the end is created by the worshiper, a mortal.

Thus, the effects of divine spells are subject to an antimagic field and do not function therein.

If a god came down in person to cast a spell, then that would ignore an antimagic field. So, for example, a god could cast some spell upon a mortal as a form of reward (or punishment) and that would ignore antimagic field.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Used to be explicitly stated in other editions that Deities were immune to mortal magic unless they chose otherwise, seems to be missing from 5E although they have not details a system for deities walking among the players all that explicitly yet either, Deities and Demigods equivalent and such. \$\endgroup\$ – Slagmoth Sep 29 '16 at 17:19
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Might be worth mentioning that a Cleric's Divine Intervention would also be unaffected by Antimagic Field as well, since its verbiage indicates the Deity directly is doing the effect. \$\endgroup\$ – Slagmoth Sep 29 '16 at 17:28
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Slagmoth, there are two examples I know of, the Rakshasa (MM p. 257) and the Tiamat (The Return of the Dragons). Both are not affected by spells cast with a spell slot 1 through 6. Maybe it is not as powerful as in previous editions, but it dearly limits the number of spells you can cast against such an entity (i.e. go ahead and count the number of slots of level 7, 8, and 9...) \$\endgroup\$ – Alexis Wilke Sep 29 '16 at 17:33
3
\$\begingroup\$

Two problems with this,

  1. Gods give mortals the ability to manifest powers, they do not directly create the effects at the mortals beck and call.

Key point here, is the clerics needs to perform all the somatic/verbal/cost components of the spell. This means they are the source/they are casting the power.

If the powers came from the deity, then there would be no reason mortals would need to perform the somatic/material components as it would not be them who was casting it.

As such the effects of such powers are subject to anti-magic suppression. A deity, must personally create the effect in order for it to override anti-magic.

  1. Powers being "divine" in nature does not have the same meaning it once did in older editions. In previous editions, Divine was intuitively meant as powers given to you by'gods'. But in this edition, with the way paladin is written (unless your gm changes it), divine powers can come from other means such as through 'strength of conviction to a cause'.

In either case it is the mortal enacting a power granted to them. Not a god enacting the power. Unless the god steps in and says (make my spell immune) its effected.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ The anti-magic field is not specific to wizards or sorcerer spells. It affects all spellcasters across the board, including cleric spells. \$\endgroup\$ – Alexis Wilke Sep 29 '16 at 17:36
2
\$\begingroup\$

DMG p. 228 (last sentence, 2nd paragraph)

Unlike a magic item, such a blessing can't be suppressed by an anti-magic field or similar effect.

A blessing is given by a god, or god like creature, to a character. This is very much the same as an ability (i.e. claws for a wolf are not affected by anti-magic) and thus does not get affected by the anti-magic field.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ While I don't feel that this is the best answer to this question, I do think (especially adding citations for blessings being like abilities) it'd make a great answer to my other question. \$\endgroup\$ – RichardJ Oct 2 '16 at 17:05
2
\$\begingroup\$

The main example I've seen cited as to why cleric spells would be effected by an antimagic field comes from the sage advice compendium:

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?
  • Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
  • Does its description say it’s magical?

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

I think this misses the point. The question being asked here is not if a cleric's spells are magical, but whether cleric spells fall under the exception made in the antimagic field spell:

Spells and other magical effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the sphere and can't protrude into it.

The Players Handbook specifically calls out where a cleric's magic comes from:

Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. Clerics are conduits for that power, manifesting it as miraculous effects. The gods don’t grant this power to everyone who seeks it, but only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling.

It says Divine magic is the power of the gods.

This questions seems to be answered in the cleric description.

If a cleric's spells are the power of the gods, then I don't see how they would not be created by the gods. If they are divine, they would not be subject to an antimagic field with the stated exception carved out for magic from deities.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I made a few edits to your answer to try to improve readability and some formatting things. Feel free to revert or edit them right back if you would like. That said, hello and welcome to RPG.SE! Please take the tour if you have no already done so and you can visit the help center center or ask things here if you'd like further guidance on things. A great first answer; good luck and happy gaming! \$\endgroup\$ – Medix2 May 18 at 2:52
-2
\$\begingroup\$

I'll use the cleric as the example as it is the easiest to explain.

They gain access to spellcasting due to their god, as all their spells can be classified as divine magic. So the only spells they can use in a "Antimagic Field" are those they gain from their Divine Domain, since those spells come directly from their god.

So, as long as there is a direct link from the effect created to a deity, it should work in an Antimagic Field.

That being said, ultimately the DM decides which effects will work in an Antimagic Field and which won't.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ All spells from cleric are not divine. They are granted by a god, but they are of all types like wizard's spells (i.e. creating a zombie is a necromantic type of spell for example.) \$\endgroup\$ – Alexis Wilke Sep 29 '16 at 17:29

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.