Magus_Jerel
First Post
Hate to tell you - but at present that link of yours isn't working Caliban... hmmm... curious.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Antimagic shell (I know, I know ...)
- Thread starter Slander
- Start date
Hate to tell you - but at present that link of yours isn't working Caliban... hmmm... curious.
Magus_Jerel said:
No, it's normal that when a web site isn't working (such as www.wizards.com) that it's not going to work when you link to it.
Magus_Jerel
First Post
Well - if your FAQ shows up... then I can read it - can't I?
Until I see some actual FAQ concerning this one - I only have the previous version of it. Under that version - My statement holds.
Caliban never has and never will like most of what I type here anyway. Caliban will also state that he only interprets what he sees - and doesn't truly express an "opinion" on things. Problem is - you do Caliban.
If you want to play "logic" to D&D rules in the strictest sense of the word - no degree of logic will ever yield a "correct" answer.
Why? Rule 0
Suspend rule 0 - and then play the game of trying to make ANY statement about logic.
As far as this FAQ - I'll believe it when I see it.
Until I see some actual FAQ concerning this one - I only have the previous version of it. Under that version - My statement holds.
Caliban never has and never will like most of what I type here anyway. Caliban will also state that he only interprets what he sees - and doesn't truly express an "opinion" on things. Problem is - you do Caliban.
If you want to play "logic" to D&D rules in the strictest sense of the word - no degree of logic will ever yield a "correct" answer.
Why? Rule 0
Suspend rule 0 - and then play the game of trying to make ANY statement about logic.
As far as this FAQ - I'll believe it when I see it.
Vanye said:
*shrug* Works for me.
If Magus can't figure out how to find the D&D Errata and FAQ section on the www.wizards.com website without me holding his hand, that's his problem. He will just have to live in ignorance.
Magus_Jerel
First Post
I now, finally, have the text of this FAQ in question in front of Me.
*** Judicial Mode on ***
Under the heading of Specific Spells; the document states that due to rules contained within chapter 10 of the PHB concerning lines of effect; AMF blocks lines of effect.
--------
Evidently, some geinus at WotC Customer Service has decided that the edge of an emanation, in general, now is a "solid barrier". This is the only plausible way such a conclusion could be drawn. This assertion is rejected under the rules concerning emanation from the same chapter.
--------
I Find that the statement contained within the text - notably that "AMF blocks lines of effect". is in direct conflict with existing rules concerning emanations and the nature of the "edge" of said emanations.
Therefore, Under the Universal statements of what to do when a conflict occurs between the PHB and any other published product - the specific statement within the FAQ is invalidated
*** End judicial Mode ***
For those of you who would understand the legal equivalent: "The law of customer service just got declared unconstitutional"
*** Judicial Mode on ***
Under the heading of Specific Spells; the document states that due to rules contained within chapter 10 of the PHB concerning lines of effect; AMF blocks lines of effect.
--------
Evidently, some geinus at WotC Customer Service has decided that the edge of an emanation, in general, now is a "solid barrier". This is the only plausible way such a conclusion could be drawn. This assertion is rejected under the rules concerning emanation from the same chapter.
--------
I Find that the statement contained within the text - notably that "AMF blocks lines of effect". is in direct conflict with existing rules concerning emanations and the nature of the "edge" of said emanations.
Therefore, Under the Universal statements of what to do when a conflict occurs between the PHB and any other published product - the specific statement within the FAQ is invalidated
*** End judicial Mode ***
For those of you who would understand the legal equivalent: "The law of customer service just got declared unconstitutional"
Just because something blocks a line of effect doesn't mean it has to be a solid object. You're using false logic. A->B does not mean B->A.
You're assuming:
All solid objects block line of effect therefore if something blocks a line of effect it is a solid object.
To use another line of similar logic:
All dogs are mammals therefore if something is a mammal its a dog.
Both are untrue statements. Mammals can be lots of things as well as dogs, and things can block line of effect and not be solid objects (like AMFs).
You're assuming:
All solid objects block line of effect therefore if something blocks a line of effect it is a solid object.
To use another line of similar logic:
All dogs are mammals therefore if something is a mammal its a dog.
Both are untrue statements. Mammals can be lots of things as well as dogs, and things can block line of effect and not be solid objects (like AMFs).
Magus_Jerel
First Post
True - but it must be solid.
At first; AMF allows "effects" to pass through the barrier, they just get supressed.
The probelm is not with object - it is with solid. THAT is the absolute contradiction.
Magus_Jerel
First Post
Let Me bring something from another thread in here; not posted by Me mind you -
What's the problem?
furthermore - the reason that AMF blocks line of effect is that it presents a "solid barrier" to magical effects.
This is also an absolute contradiction. While AMF is certainly a barrier, it is by no means "solid". The spell explicitly states that effects can pass into and OUT OF the barrier.
Is logically irreconcilleable with;
The edge of an AMF emanation is a solid barrier with respect to magical effects; and therefore blocks line of effect
Why?
pg 150 PHB
IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT
(fake quote)
I am not disputing that AMF is a "barrier", like Caliban states. I am disputing the descriptor of the word "solid" to the barrier presented by "AMF".
What I see happening is very much like a "there - not there" effect like the 2e wild magic spell.
What's the problem?
furthermore - the reason that AMF blocks line of effect is that it presents a "solid barrier" to magical effects.
This is also an absolute contradiction. While AMF is certainly a barrier, it is by no means "solid". The spell explicitly states that effects can pass into and OUT OF the barrier.
Is logically irreconcilleable with;
The edge of an AMF emanation is a solid barrier with respect to magical effects; and therefore blocks line of effect
Why?
pg 150 PHB
IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT
(fake quote)
I am not disputing that AMF is a "barrier", like Caliban states. I am disputing the descriptor of the word "solid" to the barrier presented by "AMF".
What I see happening is very much like a "there - not there" effect like the 2e wild magic spell.
my $0.02
Does this make sense to anyone?
A) You may cast a spell of any duration greater than instantaneous from within the AMF. The spell effect happens once you leave the AMF, unless the duration has expired. So, you can buff yourself, then leave the AMF.
B) You may not cast an instantaneous effect spell from within the AMF. The spell is suppressed while you are in the AMF, and that instant passes before you leave the AMF.
So, from A: you may cast a spell from within an AMF, and from B: you may not cast an instantaneous spell from within an AMF (e.g. lightning bolt, fireball). The "line of effect" could not start inside the AMF. I see no contradiction.
Also, to jump from "spell X is blocked by a solid barrier" and "spell Y (in this case, AMF) blocks spell X" to "spell Y is a solid barrier" is neither logical nor reasonable. If that were the case, then minor globe of invulnerability would be a solid barrier, because it stops magical effects that are also blocked by a solid barrier.
So AMF does not block magic effects because it presents a solid barrier to magic effects, AMF blocks magic effects because it is AN ANTI-MAGIC FIELD
Does this make sense to anyone?
A) You may cast a spell of any duration greater than instantaneous from within the AMF. The spell effect happens once you leave the AMF, unless the duration has expired. So, you can buff yourself, then leave the AMF.
B) You may not cast an instantaneous effect spell from within the AMF. The spell is suppressed while you are in the AMF, and that instant passes before you leave the AMF.
So, from A: you may cast a spell from within an AMF, and from B: you may not cast an instantaneous spell from within an AMF (e.g. lightning bolt, fireball). The "line of effect" could not start inside the AMF. I see no contradiction.
Also, to jump from "spell X is blocked by a solid barrier" and "spell Y (in this case, AMF) blocks spell X" to "spell Y is a solid barrier" is neither logical nor reasonable. If that were the case, then minor globe of invulnerability would be a solid barrier, because it stops magical effects that are also blocked by a solid barrier.
So AMF does not block magic effects because it presents a solid barrier to magic effects, AMF blocks magic effects because it is AN ANTI-MAGIC FIELD
