A Bard in my group just chose "Circle of Power" as his bonus 5th level spell, as he is a Lore bard. Does "magical effects" include Breath Weapons? We've been playing it does, but I haven't actually found anything that says what exactly a magical effect is considered to be, other than the obvious "something created by spellcasting" ?
Circle of Power
Abjuration
Level: 5
Casting time: 1 Action
Range: Self (30-foot radius)
Components: V
Duration: Concentration, up to 10 minutes
Divine energy radiates from you, distorting and diffusing magical energy within 30 feet of you. Until the spell ends, the sphere moves with you, centered on you. For the duration, each friendly creature in the area (including you) has advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects. Additionally, when an affected creature succeeds on a saving throw made against a spell or magical effect that allows it to make a saving throw to take only half damage, it instead takes no damage if it succeeds on the saving throws.
I'd say this is a DM call.
I don't treat dragon fire as magical in my world; at least, not completely magical.
I guess if you don't consider fantastical creatures not be inherently magical in nature but natural creatures in a fantasy universe, it only makes sense that their natural non-spell-like abilities are 'natural abilities' as well.. One way to go.. 5e is annoying that a lot is left to the DM fiat.. Creates too many situations for disagreements in interpretation around the gaming table.. Damn irritating
If a special ability is magical, it's obvious from the text, like the fire ray of a flameskull (it's a 'spell attack'). So a dragon's breath is not magical.
Anyone else agree that breath weapons wouldn't be considered a magical effect.. Just like to see if there's a concensus on this ?
Monstrous Manual, p.86: "Dragons are also magical creatures whose innate power fuels their dreaded breath weapons..."
Because of this, I rule that breath weapons are magical in nature. It's still open to interpretation, but in my opinion, to claim otherwise is like saying the damage from a Fireball spell isn't magical, because the magic is just the fuel, and the damage is just the physics of fire.
Nevvur wrote:
The campaign setting that I use (Mystara) frequently mentions that anti-magic effects weaken innately magical creatures, and that such creatures would sicken and die if separated from magic for too long (like how many of them fell ill during the week with no magic) - so I tend to treat any ability a monster has because of its magical nature as being magic itself, so I'd treat dragon breath as magical (but reserve the right to have some dragon-like giant lizard creature from a different world that has no innate attachment to magic but has a breath weapon - probably poison gas or some sort of acid - that is entirely nonmagical).
Tough call. Myself I think I'd say that a dragon breath wouldn't count as magical here, but a medusa's gaze would.
*readies action to cast Dispel Magic on the dragon when it gets ready to breath*
RulesJD wrote:
Think I may have found a solution. Thankyou for your replies, your posts have prompted me to have a closer look at the Monster descriptions in the MM.
Magical effects for Monsters : Beholder eye ray "shoots magical eye rays" ; Storm Giant lightning strike "hurls a bolt of magical lightning" ; Formorian evil eye "magically forces a creature" ;
Natural non-magical monster effects - Fire Elemental fire storm "take 5 fire damage" ; Dragon turtle breath weapon "exhales scalding steam" ; Medusa gaze "can see medusa's eye = petrified"
The description for the various monsters actually tells you if its a magical effect or not. I had never actually noticed that before 
Dragons are definitely magical creatures.
Lorewise their breath weapons have always been magical in nature. Hotter than normal fire. In older editions you could be immune to normal fire but magical fire would still hurt you.
In 3e breath weapons were magical by nature, which they called supernatural.
Breath weapons function exactly like spells, in cones or lines. Some Metallic dragons secondary breath weapons actually reference spells.
Manticore tail spikes are a physical attack. Not at all the same.
Plus it is a 5th level defensive spell, which your character is investing real resources to get. Give ur players a bone, unless you think it will make the game less fun? I am pretty sure they would enjoy it.
In older aditions that may be the case, but if you read the Monster stat blocks in the 5eMM, it actually states if the effect is magical or not. Dragon breath weapons don't state that. If you wanted your breath weapons to be magical you could have it be so, but I believe thats what they call a House-Rule
brettlangbdl wrote:
I think it is perfectly reasonable for something to be non-natural, or supernatural, and still not be 'magic'.
Well, I think I am going to operate on the hope that the writers were actually aware of the game mechanics when they wrote creature statistics, and that is why certain abilities read as being magical and others are not.. It's not like its random, Certain types of creature's powers consistenly are referenced as magical while others "such as breath weapons" do not.
brettlangbdl wrote:
Thats the way I am looking at it. I might not personally agree with every entry, but at least it is a RAW-based mechanic for deciding that doesn't require a "DM call" every time you meet a new monster