Casting spells in Antimagic Fields

[Greenfield]

Dakuth, I missed your longer post. I just started reading it and it troubles me.

Much of your argument is that my examples, such as Lightning Bolt, are wrong because they contradict Skip Williams. The problem is that they are 100% in compliance with the rules as written, and not simply because the rules fail to say something. They specifically say that the area of effect does continue normally outside the AMF.

We've seen Skip be wrong before, so we know it can happen.

You describe the bead in a Fireball as "flavor". It isn't. It can be blocked or intercepted, and attack rolls have to be made with it under certain circumstances. It's a thing, part of the spell, and helps define how it works. Not just color text, but a functional part of how the spell works.

Your argument from there simply seems to say that Skip is right because he's right. LOE is blocked because Skip says so, therefore any proofs or examples that run counter to that are wrong simply because they run counter to that.

That's not good enough. The AOE/LOE of a Lightning Bolt continues after the AMF. Why? Because the rules for AMF say so, and with all due respect to Mr. Williams, if/when he says it doesn't, he's wrong.

I read your a|b example and almost fell off my chair laughing. By that reasoning a caster has to include himself in any cone or line spell, since you are in effect arguing that he can't cast starting at the boundary between his square and another, he has to be in the square he's casting into. And equating an AMF to being on another plane (Ethereal) was almost as funny as having a stone wall that fits in the infinitely thin line between squares on the battle mat.

Like any DM, you are entitled to run your own game any way you like, as is Mr. Williams. And while Mr. Williams is indeed one of the authors of the game, he is only one of the authors and not the sole authority. The actual written rules are the rules, and while interpretation is not merely allowed but required, when an interpretation runs counter to what's actually written, the interpretation is the one that's wrong.

 

[dakuth]

We were discussing the whole "Line of Effect" argument, which is part of what Dandu was quizzing me about.

As you may have read, I disagree with Skip (and apparently you as well) that Antimagic Field blocks Line of Effect. Line of Effect isn't mentioned anywhere in the spell or condition descriptions, so there's nothing to say that it's blocked by the AMF. It interrupts it, which could possibly extend it (oddly enough), but doesn't block it. The spell description and the general condition description are both pretty clear that magic effects that enter the zone are suppressed, not dispelled, and that once they leave they resume normal function.

But that does bring up some interesting possibilities. Consider an Antimagic Field that intersected with ( and possibly wrapped around) a stone wall. If I cast a Lightning Bolt through the AMF in the direction of that wall, the spell's area of effect (and line of effect) are interrupted by the AMF. They don't exist in that area, but resume normally once they pass it. Sort of like quantum tunneling. The stone wall would block the spell under most circumstance, but since it never actually hits the wall inside the AMF, it will resume normal course on the other side of it, which is also on the other side of the stone wall.

In effect, the AMF allows me to throw that spell through the stone wall. How neat is that?

Actually I agree with Skip for two reasons:
1. He's one of the game's designers... so disagreeing with him basically says "I'm using Rule 0." Not a bad thing at all, but just the way it is. I try not to Rule 0 if I can (just a personal preference.)
2. AMF blocking LoE makes total sense to me. For example, it makes your quantum tunnelling lightning bolt very simple to adjudicate. It simply stops at the edge of the AMF.

 

[dakuth]

sorry, double posted again

 

[dakuth]

Dakuth, I missed your longer post. I just started reading it and it troubles me.

Much of your argument is that my examples, such as Lightning Bolt, are wrong because they contradict Skip Williams. The problem is that they are 100% in compliance with the rules as written, and not simply because the rules fail to say something. They specifically say that the area of effect does continue normally outside the AMF.

Correct. You're examples are wrong because the contradict Skip Williams. As you say below, you're welcome to rule otherwise but doing so is basically going against RAI (and IMO RAW.) Not that that's really bad thing, but it is what it is.

We've seen Skip be wrong before, so we know it can happen.

Indeed. He is only human. I've seen no evidence that he is in this case, though.

You describe the bead in a Fireball as "flavor". It isn't. It can be blocked or intercepted, and attack rolls have to be made with it under certain circumstances. It's a thing, part of the spell, and helps define how it works. Not just color text, but a functional part of how the spell works.

You'd have to show me some evidence of that. There's nothing in the rules that I've ever read that would ever require you to make attacks rolls, or block the bead (over and above LoE which blocks nearly all spells.)

Your argument from there simply seems to say that Skip is right because he's right. LOE is blocked because Skip says so, therefore any proofs or examples that run counter to that are wrong simply because they run counter to that.

Essentially yes. So the onus is now on you to prove otherwise - since he IS an authority on the matter. (one way, for example, to prove him wrong would be to show an authority contradicting him, then determining which authority has higher precedence.)

That's not good enough. The AOE/LOE of a Lightning Bolt continues after the AMF. Why? Because the rules for AMF say so, and with all due respect to Mr. Williams, if/when he says it doesn't, he's wrong.

No. The rules for AMF *do not say that at all*. I have asked you to quote it, and you haven't. Why? Because they're not there.

As written, they do imply it almost entirely because the spell does not explicitly say that it blocks LoE. This leaves many people scratching their heads. Why would AMF suppress a spell like that, then let it continue? Why can you simply land a fireball on the other side of a AMF? Do we have to take into account that it passes through? Summoned creatures have to pause in there... do spells? etc. etc. etc.

Some clarity would be nice.

What's this? A quote from one of the designers clarifying!? OMG. How helpful. What does he say? Oh right, blocks LoE. That makes *total* sense.

I read your a|b example and almost fell off my chair laughing. By that reasoning a caster has to include himself in any cone or line spell, since you are in effect arguing that he can't cast starting at the boundary between his square and another, he has to be in the square he's casting into.

I'm glad you're so amused by basic logic. You must be a very jolly fellow. For any cone or line spell, you need to have LoE from yourself, to any point in the area.

By YOUR logic, that means you could cast a line or cone spell through a closed door

And equating an AMF to being on another plane (Ethereal) was almost as funny as having a stone wall that fits in the infinitely thin line between squares on the battle mat.

You sure are easily amused. Do you find that not many people get your humour?

Like any DM, you are entitled to run your own game any way you like, as is Mr. Williams. And while Mr. Williams is indeed one of the authors of the game, he is only one of the authors and not the sole authority. The actual written rules are the rules, and while interpretation is not merely allowed but required, when an interpretation runs counter to what's actually written, the interpretation is the one that's wrong.

As I said above. You are welcome to run it how you like as well. I merely posted here because I thought others who stumble on this thread might like some official clarification on the matter. And while Mr. Williams is not the only authority on the matter - until one *actually contradicts him* it's a fair statement to say the Rules As Intended is that AntiMagic Field blocks Line of Effect.

(Personally I'd say it's Rules As Written, but I could concede a point of disagreement with that.)

 

[Greenfield]

Indeed. He is only human. I've seen no evidence that he is in this case, though.

Did you somehow miss my example of the Lightning Bolt, that the spell description specifically says would continue after the AMF?

You'd have to show me some evidence of that. There's nothing in the rules that I've ever read that would ever require you to make attacks rolls, or block the bead (over and above LoE which blocks nearly all spells.)

Look in the spell description itself...

Fireball
Evocation [Fire]
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area: 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes
A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
Material Component: A tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur.

Ranged Touch attack roll is called for when targeting through a narrow opening, and unlike just about any other spell, this one can go off in the wrong spot if something intercepts the bead.

Essentially yes. So the onus is now on you to prove otherwise - since he IS an authority on the matter. (one way, for example, to prove him wrong would be to show an authority contradicting him, then determining which authority has higher precedence.)

Well, at least you admit to the circular logic.

Tell me, would the written word of all the authors, collectively, qualify? That would, of course, be the rules as written, which specifically state that areas of effect which overlap the AMF aren't blocked or dispelled, but continue normally outside the AMF area. That isn't an interpretation nor any form of "reading between the lines", it isn't a "This is what they meant to say" thing, it's right there in black and white. I've referred to that about a dozen times in the Lightning Bolt argument, and your only response has been to simply say that it doesn't.

No. The rules for AMF *do not say that at all*. I have asked you to quote it, and you haven't. Why? Because they're not there.

Did you know that the topic of Antimagic is discussed in two places? The spell description is one, obviously, but there is a separate section under "Special Abilities". I have included this previously (I think), but in case I didn't I'll do so again:

ANTIMAGIC
An antimagic field spell or effect cancels magic altogether. An antimagic effect has the following powers and characteristics.
• No supernatural ability, spell-like ability, or spell works in an area of antimagic (but extraordinary abilities still work).
• Antimagic does not dispel magic; it suppresses it. Once a magical effect is no longer affected by the antimagic (the antimagic fades, the center of the effect moves away, and so on), the magic returns. Spells that still have part of their duration left begin functioning again, magic items are once again useful, and so forth.
• Spell areas that include both an antimagic area and a normal area, but are not centered in the antimagic area, still function in the normal area. If the spell’s center is in the antimagic area, then the spell is suppressed.
• Golems and other constructs, elementals, outsiders, and corporeal undead, still function in an antimagic area (though the antimagic area suppresses their spellcasting and their supernatural and spell-like abilities normally). If such creatures are summoned or conjured, however, see below.
• Summoned or conjured creatures of any type, as well as incorporeal undead, wink out if they enter the area of an antimagic effect. They reappear in the same spot once the field goes away.
• Magic items with continuous effects do not function in the area of an antimagic effect, but their effects are not canceled (so the contents of a bag of holding are unavailable, but neither spill out nor disappear forever).
• Two antimagic areas in the same place do not cancel each other out, nor do they stack.
• Wall of force, prismatic wall, and prismatic sphere are not affected by antimagic. Break enchantment, dispel magic, and greater dispel magic spells do not dispel antimagic. Mage’s disjunction has a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined.

Perhaps that's why you missed it.

Some clarity would be nice.

And I hope I've provided some.

By YOUR logic, that means you could cast a line or cone spell through a closed door

Well, if the closed door were infinitely thin... But no, I never said you could cast through a solid object (except for that odd circumstance I described with an AMF covering a wall). I just said that cone and line effects start at the corner of the caster's square and begin their effect in the next square over. Not exactly controversial, since that's exactly what the rules say. And if that square isn't in the AMF then the spell should work normally. Again, not exactly controversial, since again it's what the rules say.

You sure are easily amused. Do you find that not many people get your humour?

Okay, I think I need to apologize for my demeanor in this conversation. I've been putting you down for disagreeing with me, and that's not right. I'll try to contain my sarcasm. I'm sorry, and I'll try to do better.

That being said, being in an AMF is nothing like being on another plane. To start with, the AMF doesn't block line of sight, as you pointed out would happen with Etherealness. Whether or not it blocks LOE is, of course, what we're debating, and isn't a "given" for either side.

As I said above. You are welcome to run it how you like as well. I merely posted here because I thought others who stumble on this thread might like some official clarification on the matter. And while Mr. Williams is not the only authority on the matter - until one *actually contradicts him* it's a fair statement to say the Rules As Intended is that AntiMagic Field blocks Line of Effect.

(Personally I'd say it's Rules As Written, but I could concede a point of disagreement with that.)

Agreed, we're both free to run it as we see fit.

Hopefully, by pointing out the second section discussing Anitimagic, I've shown you the "written" part of "Rules as written".

 

[Dandu]

Okay, I think I need to apologize for my demeanor in this conversation. I've been putting you down for disagreeing with me, and that's not right. I'll try to contain my sarcasm. I'm sorry, and I'll try to do better.

You should leave that sort of behavior to the professionals.

 

[dakuth]

I'll keep my reply brief, because I think this debate has basically run its course.

Did you somehow miss my example of the Lightning Bolt, that the spell description specifically says would continue after the AMF?

That was just your interpretation of the rules, though, correct? So not evidence of what they actually intended.

Look in the spell description itself...

I'll concede fireball's bead sometimes has a point. It's a bit unique in that way. It does throw a spanner into the AMF since it blocks LoE, but is not a solid barrier. That is entirely open to interpretation, but I'd rule no LoE so you can't target any spell through the AMF. (then a player argues that it's not a solid barrier.. and you CAN target where you don't have LoE - it just fails (e.g. if you don't REALISE you don't have LoE) etc. etc. I concede this is one of those cases that aren't clear-cut, and I blame the bead entry in fireball, which I'd wager was originally intended to be flavour and has been conflated.)

Well, at least you admit to the circular logic.

.... no. The logic is: Skip Williams is an authority, and you are not. Therefore, if what you says contradicts him - you are wrong. Yes, you are wrong because Skip says so... but that's certainly not circular. It goes one direction only.

Tell me, would the written word of all the authors, collectively, qualify? That would, of course, be the rules as written, which specifically state that areas of effect which overlap the AMF aren't blocked or dispelled, but continue normally outside the AMF area. That isn't an interpretation nor any form of "reading between the lines", it isn't a "This is what they meant to say" thing, it's right there in black and white. I've referred to that about a dozen times in the Lightning Bolt argument, and your only response has been to simply say that it doesn't.

Yes indeedy, that would quality perfectly - and exactly what I'm looking for. And I can simply say that it doesn't... the onus is on the one making the positive claim. If you say the rules are there, you need to quote them - if you're talking about what you quote below, I'll talk about that there.

Did you know that the topic of Antimagic is discussed in two places? The spell description is one, obviously, but there is a separate section under "Special Abilities". I have included this previously (I think), but in case I didn't I'll do so again:

Perhaps that's why you missed it.

No. I didn't miss it. What you describe there works exactly like LoE. The only difference is if you interpret that as NOT blocking LoE (which admittedly you could, because it's not exactly clear,) you get weird quantum tunnelling lightning bolt effects.

And I hope I've provided some.

Alas, no. But one of the designers did.

Well, if the closed door were infinitely thin... I just said that cone and line effects start at the corner of the caster's square and begin their effect in the next square over.

And if you don't take into account LoE / LoS rules, then you could cast through a solid object. Anyway. I won't bother getting into this bit. Its a minor tangent.

That being said, being in an AMF is nothing like being on another plane.
Agreed, we're both free to run it as we see fit.

I only mentioned etherealness so someone could be standing INSIDE a wall. It could have been some other spell that lets you stand inside a solid object (I originally thought of passwall ... but it actually opens a passage.) Being on another plane had nothing to do with it.

Essentially what I was doing was finding another scenario where you could be standing *inside* an area that entirely blocks LoE. A thick, solid wall does this. There are a number of ways of being inside a wall (though now I think about it, etherealness is the only one that immediately comes to mind.) If you were inside a wall, but right on the edge - would you allow a player to cast out? I would not. Mostly, this is for balance reasons (so you can't stand in a wall with total cover, no LoE in, but perfect LoE out) - but also I believe the scenario is covered by saying you have no LoE. LoE from SRD says "hole of at least 1 square foot" is required for it to not block LoE ... I don't think standing inside a LoE blocking effect (solid wall, or AMF if you were to agree with me) would qualify.

YMMV in this regard - I'm just saying how I would adjudicate, and why, in case anyone is tossing up options for their own game.

Hopefully, by pointing out the second section discussing Anitimagic, I've shown you the "written" part of "Rules as written".

I disagree with your conclusions, and I was aware, but at the end of the day I think it's clear where we both stand.

(Sorry I didn't keep it as brief as I planned.)

 

[Deset Gled]

Since he's one of the 3e designers, pulling it out of a bag of holding makes it pretty much RAW and/or RAI.

...

Actually I agree with Skip for two reasons:
1. He's one of the game's designers... so disagreeing with him basically says "I'm using Rule 0." Not a bad thing at all, but just the way it is. I try not to Rule 0 if I can (just a personal preference.)

Regardless of my opinion on AMF (for the record, I'm of the opinion that non-instantaneous casting within the AMF is allowed but temporarily suppressed, instantaneous spells fail, and LoE is blocked), I completely disagree with your reasoning here. Mainly because you seem to be using the terms RAW and RAI interchangeably when it comes to Skip's writing.

RAW and RAI are two completely different things. If I intend to paint a picture of a square, but the paint ends up in the shape of a circle, no amount of intent in the world changes the circle into a square. Likewise, if a game designer writes "Barbarians have a d12 hit die" but later states in an interview "I meant for Barbarians to have a d20 hit die", his opinion isn't worth anything until there is an errata to actually change the appropriate rules text.

Second, RAI by one designer is only relatively meaningful. There was an entire company behind the game, including a team of designers, team of editors, and a team of executives. The intent of one designer is interesting and certainly worth discussion, but is in no way to be taken as the intent of everyone involved.

Third, intent can change over time. Skip may intend for AMF to block LoE now, but there's no way to know what his intent was before. In fact, Skip has been known to change and even completely reverse rules decisions he made in FAQ and Sage Advice.

What this boils down to is that an argument based on authority of a game designer is meaningless in a RAW argument (unless, of course, the designer is presenting an argument based on logical analysis). Just because one designer decides to house rule something doesn't mean everyone else in the world has to follow the same house rule. Designers can use "Rule 0", too, and it doesn't change what's written the books and errata. When a designer wants to speak ex cathedra, he must do so in errata. Anything else is just musings and opinions, and should (only) be valued as such.

 

[dakuth]

Seems fair enough.

For my money, I think it counts as RAI - until such a time as something contradictory comes along.

You've convinced me it's not RAW though (something I was a little on the fence about.)

 

[Greenfield]

That was just your interpretation of the rules, though, correct? So not evidence of what they actually intended.

It was a direct reading of the text in the rules. Area of effect continues normally outside the AMF. It's right there in black and white. Not an interpretation, the actual rules.

In the interest of brevity I'll paraphrase some of what you're saying...

Regarding fireball's bead, you agree that it "sometimes has a point" (same as being a "thing"?) But you conclude that I'm wrong because you're right. Not what I'd consider a well reasoned proof, but it's what we have.

Your next argument is that since I'm not Skip Williams, I'm wrong, even when quoting the exact text of the rules.

Yes indeedy, that would quality perfectly - and exactly what I'm looking for. And I can simply say that it doesn't... the onus is on the one making the positive claim. If you say the rules are there, you need to quote them...

I have, several times. You've dismissed, rather than disproven.

No. I didn't miss it. What you describe there works exactly like LoE. The only difference is if you interpret that as NOT blocking LoE (which admittedly you could, because it's not exactly clear,) you get weird quantum tunnelling lightning bolt effects.

So the problem is that if I'm right, then you're wrong, and that isn't possible?

The part I highlighted says exactly what I've been saying, that AOE continues normally outside of the AMF. It's not an opinion, an interpretation, or some argument for "Rules as intended". It's an exact quote from the rules. You appear to be dismissing the exact text of the rules, and I honestly don't understand how you can do that in a discussion like this. We are supposed to be discussing the rules, aren't we?

I only mentioned etherealness so someone could be standing INSIDE a wall. It could have been some other spell that lets you stand inside a solid object (I originally thought of passwall ... but it actually opens a passage.) Being on another plane had nothing to do with it.

I see, a simple oversight, but a bit disengenuos, since Etherealness lys down specific limits on casting spells back to the material plane. As in, you pretty much can't, whether you're inside the object or not.

As an aside, Meld Into Stone may be the spell you're looking for, though I don't know off hand if it allows any spell casting while inside the stone.

Your example was chosen as one that specifically blocks LOE, and was used as an argument to support that AMF blocks LOE. To many flaws in there to bother enumerating. Suffice it to say that it feels like you're arguing in bad faith.

As for where we stand: Yes, I think we both know. I think I'm reading the rules exactly as written, with no spin, twist, or contortions of word, phrase or logic.

By the way, I'd like to apologize again for my bad manners. I sometimes get that way when I'm frustrated, and this has been a very frustrating exchange. I kept pointing to the rules and you kept saying that they weren't there.

Even so, it doesn't excuse anything, and I really will try to do better in our future exchanges.

Oh, and I've had a change of heart on one point. Sadly it's one we both agreed on: That a caster can cast spells affecting themselves while in an AMF. I said that I thought it was all right.

After reading the rules over and over again as we went through this, I realized that they pretty clearly say no. And it has nothing to do with LOE. It has to do with targeting a spell with a starting point inside an AMF. The rules say that spells with a "starting point" inside the AMF are completely canceled, and even if the area is "Creature touched", it still counts. Whatever else we may disagree about, I hop we can agree that spells targeted into an AMF don't work.