Are the Witch's Spirit Familiar and Stitched Familiar magical?

[Dryades]

Spirit Familiar & Stitched Familiar

I just assumed they were magical since they used your spell DC but they actually don't have any trait that would indicate that.

[Blave]

Since they lack any trait or description making them magical, they are not magical.

[QuidEst]

While there's no trait, Stitched Familiar does say it's magic, so expect plenty of GMs to treat them as magic.

[shroudb]

i would say Stitched is indeed magic, as I would find it very hard to argue that a "mass of animated magic" is not magic.

spirit familiar though is just a spirit, not unlike a ghost, or a Spirit creature.

So, I would say:
Stiched: magic
Spirit: not magic

[Finoan]

I would generally consider it to be magical. I'm kinda thinking it is an error that they don't have the traits for that.

I am also struggling to find a scenario where it would make a difference. They aren't spells, so you couldn't counterspell them - or even use Recognize Spell on them.

[taks]

I would not consider them magical for the same reason golems are not.

Finoan wrote:

I am also struggling to find a scenario where it would make a difference. They aren't spells, so you couldn't counterspell them - or even use Recognize Spell on them.

If they're magic, they can be suppressed with dispel magic or similar.

[Conscious Meat]

They're instantaneous effects, so "Dispel Magic" doesn't seem applicable; but ruling them as magical abilities would prevent them from being used within the AoE of "Antimagic Field", I guess.

[taks]

The effect doesn't inherit the magic trait, so even that would be questionable, in spite of the description.

Note that the construct ability (not a feat) does inherit the construct trait.

[shroudb]

taks wrote:

The effect doesn't inherit the magic trait, so even that would be questionable, in spite of the description.

Note that the construct ability (not a feat) does inherit the construct trait.

Descriptions are important though. Oftentimes more important than the Traits.

And in most cases, items made out of a thing do not have the corresponding Trait:

A steel sword is made out of metal, even if it doesn't have the Metal Trait.

It's not like a lit torch is not emitting fire because the torch item doesn't have the Fire trait.

In this case, the ability in question directly says that it is straight up "a mass of magic".

It is exactly the same as saying that a metal sword is indeed made out of metal.

So, the ability itself tells us what it is, regardless if the trait is missing.

Ignoring what an effect directly tells you it is leads to chaos. By Trait definition, you can light a bonfire underwater using flint and steel, none of those have the "fire trait". Or that rust effects do not work on common steel armor and weapons because they lack the Metal trait.

Also, if we want to be so pedantic about traits:
The Magical Trait only applies to things "imbued with magic". It wouldn't apply to Stitched because it's not "something imbued with magic" it's something "made entirely out of magic".

[Xenocrat]

Whether the physical one is magical matters for damaging incorporeals. The spirit damage one will be fine.

Paizo often misses sensible traits for space or oversight reasons. My personal peeve is all the magical monster abilities that lack the concentrate trait. Disruptive fighter cry.

[Errenor]

Xenocrat wrote:

Paizo often misses sensible traits for space or oversight reasons. My personal peeve is all the magical monster abilities that lack the concentrate trait. Disruptive fighter cry.

Let them. If magical monsters don't need to concentrate to use their abilities - that's very sensible. Unless of course it's clearly a spell or very spell-like.

[taks]

Yet they were explicit with the construct ability in that it replaces the animal trait. ‍*shrugs*

Edit: the shrug emoji didn't come out right.

[shroudb]

taks wrote:

Yet they were explicit with the construct ability in that it replaces the animal trait. ‍*shrugs*

Edit: the shrug emoji didn't come out right.

That's because the Construct ability/trait fundamentaly change mechanics. Instead of having to repeat all the mechanics it's much easier to slap the trait.

But something being magical or not doesn't fundamentaly alters a stat block.

Same thing with traits like Metal and Fire. There are specific mechanics relating to those traits. Things like staves, things like schools, things like bonus damages on specific element, or a specific weakness.

Weakenss to Metal as an example, would proc from a spell with teh Metal trait but wouldn't proc from the steel sword hitting it. That doesn't make the sword any less metalic, and similarily prone to stuff that affect metal objects like rust and shocking grasps.

Similarly here, the lack of the Magical trait means exactly that: if something specifically refers to the trait, then it doesn't have it, but if something simply calls for something magical (like the aforementioned incorporeal resistances), then it is indeed magical.

[taks]

But becoming magical doesn't. Right.

[Finoan]

Construct is a creature type. Like Undead.

The Magical trait has a different purpose than those.

[shroudb]

taks wrote:

But becoming magical doesn't. Right.

Exactly right, glad you got it!