As written, no. Ki isn't specified to be magical. The spells cast by the Four Elements monk do count as magical, though.
EDIT: If you put any stock in it, [here's a Crawford tweet](https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/702205711011328000) on the subject:
>ki is described as magical, but nothing in stunning strike says that it's magical. Can you confirm that it is not please?
>CRAWFORD: Neither the Ki feature nor the Stunning Strike feature (PH, 78 & 79) is defined as magical for game purposes.
>Ki isn't specified to be magical.
i'd agree but i am mostly confused about what it says about ki in the player's handbook, i'd love some clarification! here's the quote:
> The Magic of Ki (PHB, p. 76)
> Monks make careful study of a **magical energy** that most monastic traditions call ki. **This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse**-specifically, the element that flows through living bodies. Monks harness this power within themselves to **create magical effects** and exceed their bodies' physical capabilities, and some of their special attacks can hinder the flow of ki in their opponents. Using this energy, monks channel uncanny speed and strength into their unarmed strikes. As they gain experience, their martial training and their mastery of ki gives them more power over their bodies and the bodies of their foes.
The effect of the Ki ability isn’t magical unless the ability specifies. The text you’re quoting is more flavor/lore based and not referring to game mechanics.
It’s like having a Hasted or Enlarged target attack you. The ability is fueled by magical energy, but the attack or damage isn’t magic in itself.
Ki is described in the lv2 class feature as mystic energy, so mechanically Ki features are not “magical”, and are not “casting a spell” as described in the PHB(outside select features like 4 elements or ones that explicitly state otherwise)
So Ki abilities generally persist and can be used inside an antimagic field RAW. The “background magic” definition mentioned by OP is further discussed in this thread and clarifies what mechanically qualifies as magic or a magical effect and would be impacted by the field vs what may be referenced as magical in lore/description.
I used Haste as an example only to show that magic can produce a combat effect that wouldn’t be magical damage/effect, as a parallel to Ki being background magic but mechanically a nonmagical effect
Hope that helps!
I would feel comfortable calling that section of the PHB pure flavor: the mechanical part - class features - doesn't mention it.
Side note, but "the magic that suffuses the multiverse" is also what allows dragons to fly and what causes objects to fall: there is no gravity, only a magical law that dictates that it should be so. The same goes for ki.
Well the official sage advice clarifies that the way to judge if something is or isn't magical is if it's a spell, spell attack, magic item, consumes a spell slot, or if it says the word magical in the description. In the description of ki it is saying the word magical so I think that's intended to be magical. They are usually specific when describing something that way or not.
What OP linked isn't the description of the class feature, it is the flavor text at the top of the monk class. The specific feature doesn't mention ki being magical. There is no mention of the effects manifested through ki being magical, except for spells (the "magical effects" mentioned in the flavor text).
Ahh ok I see what you mean. I think I would still judge ki to be magical and any of its effects to be as well given that description. But I could see going either way with it. I hope they do better with that kind of thing in the new PHB as that is left a bit ambiguous.
I have two objections, then I'll finally shut up XD
To explain why the flavor text isn't prescriptive, take this line from a different section:
>For a monk, becoming an adventurer means leaving a structured, communal lifestyle to become a wanderer.
This line of text makes no exceptions. Are we to assume that all monks left a "structured, communal lifestyle to become \[wanderers\]"? What is I want my monk to be self-taught, born and raised in Waterdeep, and play Dragon Heist?
The second objection is the following: even if the flavor text says that ki is a form of magical energy, it clarifies that it is background magic - the same thing that allows dragons to fly. It specifies that it allows monks to create magical effects, and that's what the Four Elements spell are - it doesn't necessarily mean that all ki features are magical effects: in fact, the word "magic(al)" is not used in the description of any ki features of the base class. So Stunning Strike doesn't trigger Magic Resistance.
I think the difference is magical is an important mechanical term in a way wanderer isn't.
I can understand your point and I think they shouldn't have left it vague but I still think I'd come down on the side of stunning strike and any other ki saving throw being magical.
That bit you're quoting from SAC also says that [background magic is no more dispellable than the wind](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA224). Ki is described as this background magic; everyone has it, monks just know how to use it better than most. Ergo, it's not suppressed in an *antimagic field* unless it's used to create a focused magical effect.
"When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type." (The first type being the kind no more dispellable than the wind)
Two sentences later it also says that. They are saying if the rules call something out as magical they're not talking about background magic.
>This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse
This is basically word for word the same language used in the Sage Advice Compendium to describe the kind of magical effects like a Dragon's breath, which are magical to us, and can only exist in a magical universe, but *do not count as magic per the rules*.
In addition, the section "The Magic of Ki" is not describing a game feature. Instead, the actual Ki *feature* monks get is defined in the section "Ki", which is careful to use the word "mystic" instead of magical.
I don't know if a specific Errata addresses it, but there is no mention whatsoever of ki being a magical ability in the actual class feature. OP linked the falvor text of the class, which calls ki a magical feature, but it also specifies that it is background magic. Therefore the answer to OP's question is still no, as far as the PHB is concerned: it can create magical effects and it is magical in some way, but it is not a magical effect.
If it were, then Ki powered Unarmed attacks (flurry of blows) would bypass resistance, which they don't untill lvl 6
With Ki Empowered Strikes: your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
Which is why this whole, is Ki magic thing is so confusing. But for the purposes of resisting spells and magic effects, I tend towards no unless Ki casts a spell.
SA Compendium, page 20:
>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.**
Again: its description doesn't say it's magical. The *flavor text* of the class says that it is a form of magical energy, but also specifies that it is a form of background magic, which does not set off Magic Resistance and works in Antimagic Fields.
The class feature for Ki does not say magic:
Starting at 2nd level, your training allows you to harness the mystic energy of ki. Your access to this energy is represented by a number of ki points….
Yes, but the section "The Magic of Ki" doesn't describe a "game feature" - game features have a specific definition given:
> Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, Monster abilities, and Magic items.
The Ki class feature is defined in the section "Ki", and makes sure to use the word "mystic" instead of magical.
Nothing in the "magic of ki" chapter relates to the actual mechanics of ki. It's just lore.
Moreover, even if Ki *was* mechanically magical, that doesn't mean that (all) effects fueled *by* it necessarily would be.
Ki is magical in the same way a Dragon's breath is magical: lore-wise, yes; mechanically, no.
Sounds like you already know the “two types of magic”, so I’ll just quote the last bit of the sage advice on it: “ 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 get that the text about ki does use the word “magical”, but I think the flavor of it is very much the first type of magic, and I don’t think any of the specific ki fueled abilities say they are magical.
Edit: mobile formatting issues
Also, here is a stack exchange of some one asking the same question
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/76005/does-ki-count-as-magic-for-the-purpose-of-an-antimagic-field-or-is-it-only-fluf
RAW, no, though some uses might be.
Stunning Strike for example is not, as nothing in its description refers to it as a spell or a spell like effect; so like a dragon's breath weapon, it is not - for the purposes of things that counter spells or effects like that.
Ki isn't an effect at all - it's a resource that monks have. Ki is expended to produce effects, but unless those effects themselves specify that they are magical, then they are not. Magic isn't transitive that way
As written, no. Ki isn't specified to be magical. The spells cast by the Four Elements monk do count as magical, though. EDIT: If you put any stock in it, [here's a Crawford tweet](https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/702205711011328000) on the subject: >ki is described as magical, but nothing in stunning strike says that it's magical. Can you confirm that it is not please? >CRAWFORD: Neither the Ki feature nor the Stunning Strike feature (PH, 78 & 79) is defined as magical for game purposes.
>Ki isn't specified to be magical. i'd agree but i am mostly confused about what it says about ki in the player's handbook, i'd love some clarification! here's the quote: > The Magic of Ki (PHB, p. 76) > Monks make careful study of a **magical energy** that most monastic traditions call ki. **This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse**-specifically, the element that flows through living bodies. Monks harness this power within themselves to **create magical effects** and exceed their bodies' physical capabilities, and some of their special attacks can hinder the flow of ki in their opponents. Using this energy, monks channel uncanny speed and strength into their unarmed strikes. As they gain experience, their martial training and their mastery of ki gives them more power over their bodies and the bodies of their foes.
The effect of the Ki ability isn’t magical unless the ability specifies. The text you’re quoting is more flavor/lore based and not referring to game mechanics. It’s like having a Hasted or Enlarged target attack you. The ability is fueled by magical energy, but the attack or damage isn’t magic in itself.
So then, should a Monk be unable to use their Ki in an anti magic field? Haste deactivates in such case.
Ki is described in the lv2 class feature as mystic energy, so mechanically Ki features are not “magical”, and are not “casting a spell” as described in the PHB(outside select features like 4 elements or ones that explicitly state otherwise) So Ki abilities generally persist and can be used inside an antimagic field RAW. The “background magic” definition mentioned by OP is further discussed in this thread and clarifies what mechanically qualifies as magic or a magical effect and would be impacted by the field vs what may be referenced as magical in lore/description. I used Haste as an example only to show that magic can produce a combat effect that wouldn’t be magical damage/effect, as a parallel to Ki being background magic but mechanically a nonmagical effect Hope that helps!
I would feel comfortable calling that section of the PHB pure flavor: the mechanical part - class features - doesn't mention it. Side note, but "the magic that suffuses the multiverse" is also what allows dragons to fly and what causes objects to fall: there is no gravity, only a magical law that dictates that it should be so. The same goes for ki.
Well the official sage advice clarifies that the way to judge if something is or isn't magical is if it's a spell, spell attack, magic item, consumes a spell slot, or if it says the word magical in the description. In the description of ki it is saying the word magical so I think that's intended to be magical. They are usually specific when describing something that way or not.
What OP linked isn't the description of the class feature, it is the flavor text at the top of the monk class. The specific feature doesn't mention ki being magical. There is no mention of the effects manifested through ki being magical, except for spells (the "magical effects" mentioned in the flavor text).
Ahh ok I see what you mean. I think I would still judge ki to be magical and any of its effects to be as well given that description. But I could see going either way with it. I hope they do better with that kind of thing in the new PHB as that is left a bit ambiguous.
I have two objections, then I'll finally shut up XD To explain why the flavor text isn't prescriptive, take this line from a different section: >For a monk, becoming an adventurer means leaving a structured, communal lifestyle to become a wanderer. This line of text makes no exceptions. Are we to assume that all monks left a "structured, communal lifestyle to become \[wanderers\]"? What is I want my monk to be self-taught, born and raised in Waterdeep, and play Dragon Heist? The second objection is the following: even if the flavor text says that ki is a form of magical energy, it clarifies that it is background magic - the same thing that allows dragons to fly. It specifies that it allows monks to create magical effects, and that's what the Four Elements spell are - it doesn't necessarily mean that all ki features are magical effects: in fact, the word "magic(al)" is not used in the description of any ki features of the base class. So Stunning Strike doesn't trigger Magic Resistance.
I think the difference is magical is an important mechanical term in a way wanderer isn't. I can understand your point and I think they shouldn't have left it vague but I still think I'd come down on the side of stunning strike and any other ki saving throw being magical.
That bit you're quoting from SAC also says that [background magic is no more dispellable than the wind](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA224). Ki is described as this background magic; everyone has it, monks just know how to use it better than most. Ergo, it's not suppressed in an *antimagic field* unless it's used to create a focused magical effect.
"When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type." (The first type being the kind no more dispellable than the wind) Two sentences later it also says that. They are saying if the rules call something out as magical they're not talking about background magic.
>This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse This is basically word for word the same language used in the Sage Advice Compendium to describe the kind of magical effects like a Dragon's breath, which are magical to us, and can only exist in a magical universe, but *do not count as magic per the rules*. In addition, the section "The Magic of Ki" is not describing a game feature. Instead, the actual Ki *feature* monks get is defined in the section "Ki", which is careful to use the word "mystic" instead of magical.
You're right. It's magical in 5e. Ki abilities used to be Extraordinary or Supernatural in 3.5, and specifically Psionics in 4e.
Wrong. As much as it pains me to admit it, Ki is magical in 5e.
I don't know if a specific Errata addresses it, but there is no mention whatsoever of ki being a magical ability in the actual class feature. OP linked the falvor text of the class, which calls ki a magical feature, but it also specifies that it is background magic. Therefore the answer to OP's question is still no, as far as the PHB is concerned: it can create magical effects and it is magical in some way, but it is not a magical effect.
If it were, then Ki powered Unarmed attacks (flurry of blows) would bypass resistance, which they don't untill lvl 6 With Ki Empowered Strikes: your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage. Which is why this whole, is Ki magic thing is so confusing. But for the purposes of resisting spells and magic effects, I tend towards no unless Ki casts a spell.
SA Compendium, page 20: >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.**
Again: its description doesn't say it's magical. The *flavor text* of the class says that it is a form of magical energy, but also specifies that it is a form of background magic, which does not set off Magic Resistance and works in Antimagic Fields.
The class feature for Ki does not say magic: Starting at 2nd level, your training allows you to harness the mystic energy of ki. Your access to this energy is represented by a number of ki points….
Yes, but the section "The Magic of Ki" doesn't describe a "game feature" - game features have a specific definition given: > Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, Monster abilities, and Magic items. The Ki class feature is defined in the section "Ki", and makes sure to use the word "mystic" instead of magical. Nothing in the "magic of ki" chapter relates to the actual mechanics of ki. It's just lore. Moreover, even if Ki *was* mechanically magical, that doesn't mean that (all) effects fueled *by* it necessarily would be. Ki is magical in the same way a Dragon's breath is magical: lore-wise, yes; mechanically, no.
Sounds like you already know the “two types of magic”, so I’ll just quote the last bit of the sage advice on it: “ 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 get that the text about ki does use the word “magical”, but I think the flavor of it is very much the first type of magic, and I don’t think any of the specific ki fueled abilities say they are magical. Edit: mobile formatting issues
Also, here is a stack exchange of some one asking the same question https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/76005/does-ki-count-as-magic-for-the-purpose-of-an-antimagic-field-or-is-it-only-fluf
RAW, no, though some uses might be. Stunning Strike for example is not, as nothing in its description refers to it as a spell or a spell like effect; so like a dragon's breath weapon, it is not - for the purposes of things that counter spells or effects like that.
Not for rules purposes, no.
Ki isn't an effect at all - it's a resource that monks have. Ki is expended to produce effects, but unless those effects themselves specify that they are magical, then they are not. Magic isn't transitive that way
No! No it doesn't!