Casting spells in Antimagic Fields

[jonesy]

I might be going out on a limb here, but if the spell is entirely suppressed, that seems to indicate the same thing to me as saying it is canceled and the two passages I previously quoted appear to back that up.

But according to what it is saying that still only cancels it if it is an instantaneous spell. I don't see any difference between suppressed and entirely suppressed if it is not an instantaneous spell. The wording of the whole thing is really muddled.

 

[Jimlock]

-Oh my god... how can this spell be so ****ed up after all the errata... all the revisions... the RC... the Q&As....

-Yeah... tell me about it...

 

[airwalkrr]

This has historically been one of the most debated spells in any edition of the game. If you didn't want to get into a debate, you never should have clicked on this thread.

 

[airwalkrr]

Point of origin is irrelevant to where the caster stands and casts the spell.

Technically, you are correct. The point of origin can be anywhere within the range of the spell for many spells. For some spells, like ray spells though, I think the point of origin is by definition the caster. So the question is whether something like the following could happen: a wizard completely within an antimagic field then attempts to cast charm monster on a monster outside the field.

First of all, given the way magic is described throughout D&D, the caster is inherently tied to the magic of his spells. So it flies in the face of logic to suggest that the above example would be possible. Appealing to logic doesn't always convince people when talking about rules though, especially when the rules are so tied up in specific terminology.

Second, there is a lot of evidence that the designers never intended to allow antimagic field to let casters cast spells within it. The Initiate of Mystra feat certainly seems to be designed for casters who find themselves within an antimagic field. But it could be interpreted to mean the caster with the feat can just create magic with a point of origin in the antimagic field.

This is entirely anecdotal, but when I played in Living Greyhawk (I was very active in the community, probably over a thousand hours of gameplay as both a player and judge), I never saw any judge allow a character to use any magical ability if the character was inside an antimagic field at the time. And I played all over the United States in at least a half dozen states. I am sure there are people with different experiences though, which is why threads like this even exist.

So what's the answer? I can't really tell you with 100% certainty because there seems to be some ambiguity written into the spell and an almost intentional avoidance to address the specific issue of whether a caster can or can't cast a spell while inside an antimagic field. You'd think it would be a fairly straightforward question to answer and one that would be included in the spell, but either the designers thought it was obvious the way it was written or intentionally left it void. I am leaning towards the former, but then the argument just boils down to the true intent, which is hard to discern without Monte Cook, Skip Williams, or someone similar chiming in on the subject.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

As already mentioned in perhaps more words, the act itself of casting a spell is not magical. The action is performed and wasted after all. The effect of the spell is magical though, unless otherwise noted.

The origination point is almost universally considered to be the caster. This, however, could lead to some interesting circumstances. What part of the caster? What happens when the caster is in the AMF, but his hands (or other body parts applicable) are not and he casts a somatic spell? One could argue a Small or Medium creature standing on the edge of an AMF could cast under such circumstances, since they have 5 foot reach after all.

Such an interpretation would mean the origin of a spell is based off its casting components. A verbal and somatic spell would require someone's respective sources to be outside an AMF. What about material components or foci? Those probably have to be outside the AMF as well.

 

[Greenfield]

Balance wise, I'm in the "No casting" camp. Particularly with the addition from Rules Compendium. That adds support from the rules as well.

If my 6th level spell makes me 100% immune to all incoming spells, yet allows me to blast away with impunity, it's broken. Period.

And if the Rules Compendium says that spells can't originate from inside at all, and that enforces good game balance, who am I to argue?

 

[Arrowhawk]

A question that I'm sure has been asked before...

Can you "cast" a spell while in an Antimagic Field? Surely all magic effects are "supressed" within it (except those noted), but can you "cast" a spell in it?

I say yes, but perhaps I'm missing something...

***An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within***

I haven't researched this independently of this thread. Reading the spell and noting the specific use of "suppress" instead of cancel...and noting that it specifically says magic is not "dispelled"....my objective opinion is:

Yes. You can definitely cast a spell within an AMF. What happens depends on the type of spell. For example, if you cast Mage Armor within the AMF...the spell is cast...it just has no effect until you leave the AMF.

Based on the description you've provided, the best way to think of an AMF is as a "dampening field." Except the dampening level is infinite so all magic is suppressed. An instantaneous spell is cancelled within an AMF because it only lasts an instant and that instant it is entirely suppressed. A Scorching Ray or any other damage dealing spell that specifically originates from the spell casters hands and takes effect instantly, would not work. The Ray would not propagate invisibly inside the field and spring to life outside of it.

It's not that complicated. Now, there are probably a number of spells I don't know about that would be difficult to determine, and there may be other WotC discussions or explanations that might confuse the matter. But on the face of what you've provided...it seems pretty straight forward.

So once again, casting, bard music, and everything else, magic can be done inside an AMF...they are just dampened to have zero magnitude while in the AMF.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it....for now.

 

[Arrowhawk]

If my 6th level spell makes me 100% immune to all incoming spells, yet allows me to blast away with impunity, it's broken. Period.

I thought you were a RAW kind of guy?

 

[Greenfield]

And if RAW (as per Rules Compendium) says that "If a spell's point of origin is inside an antimagic area, that spell is entirely suppressed.", then I can't cast Mage Armor, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, Scorching Ray or any other spell that originates at the caster, then RAW backs me up.

I'll have to check the RC myself, just to be sure, before I make that my final position though.

In our campaigns we've always played it that AMF can't be used to walk through Wall of Force, Force Cube, Prismatic Wall or Prismatic Sphere, if the spells are already in place, but that you can't cast those (or any other spells) into an AMF.

Why? All of those spells have specific effects you need to bring them down, so AMF won't, but AMF says spells cast into the area are suppressed while the AMF is up. So whoever gets there first wins.

YMMV, of course.

 

[Arrowhawk]

And if RAW (as per Rules Compendium) says that "If a spell's point of origin is inside an antimagic area, that spell is entirely suppressed.", then I can't cast Mage Armor, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, Scorching Ray or any other spell that originates at the caster, then RAW backs me up.

There is s fundamental difference between "suppressing" a spell and canceling a spell or dispelling. You can't "suppress" a spell unless it is in effect. It would be nonsensical to use the word "suppress" if the spell was just flat cancelled or couldn't be cast. RAW explicitly states the spell is NOT dispelled. the RC also says this.

If an instantaneous spell is entirely suppressed, that spell is effectively canceled. (It’s suppressed, and its duration instantaneously expires.) An instantaneous area spell is only entirely suppressed and effectively canceled if its point of origin is within the antimagic area. Otherwise it works like any other area spell that has a point of origin outside the antimagic area—only where its area overlaps the antimagic area is its effect is suppressed (and effectively canceled).
​

Emphasis added.

For me this is dispositive. Spells can be cast inside AMF and ONLY when they are "instantaneous" and are cast within the AMF are they "effectively" cancelled...and that's ONLY because the duration expires...not because the magic doesn't work. The key phrase is "effectively canceled"...not just plain cancelled.


Does this create playability issues? I don't know...but per RAW a spell is not cancelled...it's suppressed. "Suppress" is the key term here. It would be trivial for them to say the spell is cancelled. They even use that exact word when talking about instantaneous spells. The choice of suppress is not random or accidental, it's chosen purposely.