10
\$\begingroup\$

I know in current editions they don't explicitly state that the auras for paladins are based on magic.

I haven't ran into this yet, but my question is, does the effect provided from an aura penetrate anti-magic?

\$\endgroup\$
11
\$\begingroup\$

As you imply, anti-magic affects "spells and magical effects". Spells are obvious. Magical effect means an effect created/sustained by magic - either a spell or magic item.

D&D 5e says what it means and means what it says: unless an ability is called out as magical or a spell then it is neither.

The paladin's aura is not identified as magical so it isn't and is unaffected by an antimagic zone. Neither is their ability to lay on hands, however, a Potion of Healing is because it is a "magical red fluid" or a Cure Wounds spell is because its a spell.

Indeed, most class features are not magical in any way. Exceptions include:

  • All classes' spellcasting abilities (duh)
  • Barbarian's Totem effects: "... your totem spirit fills you with supernatural might, adding magical fuel to your barbarian rage"
  • Cleric's and Paladin's Channel Divinity: "... using that energy to fuel magical effects."
  • Druid's Wild Shape: "... to magically assume the shape ...". Its debatable if this would cause you to change back or if an antimagic field would only prevent you from "assum[ing] the shape"
  • Druid's and Monk's Timeless Body: "... the primal magic that you wield causes you to age more slowly." You'd have to spend a long time in an antimagic zone for this to be noticeable though.
  • Fighter's Weapon Bond: "... that creates a magical bond ...".
  • Monk's Ki: "... a magical energy that most monastic traditions call ki."
  • Paladin's Divine Health: "... the divine magic flowing through you makes you immune to disease."
  • Paladin's Aura of Warding: "... ancient magic lies so heavily upon you that it forms an eldritch ward."
  • Sorcerer's Draconic Resistance: "As magic flows through your body, it causes physical traits of your dragon ancestors to emerge." Like Wild Shape its debatable that you would lose these in an antimagic field as it can be read that magic creates them but doesn't sustain them.
  • Sorcerer's Bend Fate: "... twist fate using your wild magic."
  • Warlock's Eldrich Invocations: "... imbue you with an abiding magical ability."
  • Warlock's Entropic Ward: "... magically ward yourself ...".
  • Wizard's Arcane Ward: "... weave magic around yourself ...".
  • Wizard's Hypnotic Gaze: "... magically enthral ..."
  • Wizard's Command Undead: "... use magic to bring undead under your control ..."
  • Wizard's Transmuter's Stone: "... creating a transmuter’s stone that stores transmutation magic."
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Only those Ki Abilities that allow you to cast spells are affected as far as I am aware or is that what you mean and not Ki in general? I understand the reading of Lay on Hands and your conclusion but it seems an oversight and a stretch for me to allow it in my games since it is not even necessarily "Divine" anymore. \$\endgroup\$ – Slagmoth Sep 29 '16 at 20:43
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ A quote or citation for that last sentence would really strengthen this answer \$\endgroup\$ – Weaveworker89 Sep 29 '16 at 21:40
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ You have quoted flavor text for Ki, however it appears Crawford indicates that unless the specific Ki ability explicitly says it is magical it is not considered so. Getting a bit off topic from OP but it does support the notion that Aura and LoH are not explicitly called out as magical in any text so by RAW this seems to be the correct answer unless future rulings from the team override them. sageadvice.eu/2014/11/06/ki-vs-antimagic \$\endgroup\$ – Slagmoth Sep 30 '16 at 12:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Slagmoth he can play it as he wants, I'll play it as it's written \$\endgroup\$ – Dale M Sep 30 '16 at 20:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ @DaleM I would be interested in how you play Paladin then, as the flavor text is entirely contradictory to playing it any way other than LG. And I assume you know that Crawford actually had a hand in writing the rules and is the only citable source as he is pretty much the final say on Sage Advice? As you say though any DM is empowered to play their way... there is not a table that doesn't use house rules. \$\endgroup\$ – Slagmoth Oct 1 '16 at 4:03

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.