Casting spells in Antimagic Fields

[Greenfield]

I see the distinction, but not the functional difference.

If my blasting spell originates inside the AMF and is therefore entirely suppressed, functionally the spell never went off. Pull trigger, no boom-boom.

Call it one, call it the other, then end result is the same.

 

[Arrowhawk]

I see the distinction, but not the functional difference.

If my blasting spell originates inside the AMF and is therefore entirely suppressed, functionally the spell never went off. Pull trigger, no boom-boom.

Call it one, call it the other, then end result is the same.

There is a huge functional difference depending on the spell. Look at Mage Armor. I can cast it within an AMF...and as soon as I walk out...it's active at full strength. This is quite different than saying I couldn't cast the spell to begin with. Same with any stat boosts, etc.

Now here's the part you're not going to like...

I got this from the RC p.134

AREA
Some spells affect an area. Sometimes a spell description specifies a specially defined area, but usually an area is a burst, an emanation, or a spread. Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but you don’t otherwise control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. You must have line of effect to the point of origin.​

Emphasis added.

In essence, this means a whole slew of offensive spells can be cast inside an AMF and still affect creatures outside of it...like Sleep. Does that create playability problems? Maybe. But that's the RAW as it appears to be written. Unless someone has a WotC article addressing this somewhere. The only other caveat is that the guy who appears to have written and edited the RC is not one of the original authors for the PHB. Don't know if that means anything or not.

EDIT:

I just noticed it says "line of effect to the point of orign" I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think that should be line of "sight" not "effect" as I'm do not belief "line of effect" is a term of art.

 

[kitcik]

I agree with that except the edit. Line of effect means unobstructed (in a physical sense) and is an official term.

 

[airwalkrr]

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.

While I agree with you that this is absolutely the way the spell is intended to work, the problem that rules lawyers have can be laid out below.

The origination point is almost universally considered to be the caster.

This is not technically true. See the description of Area in the SRD. This is mirrored in the RC as Arrowhawk points out above. The key phrase is "you select the point where the spell originates." And it is clear from an objective reading that this point, generally referred to as the "point of origin" or PoO, can be anywhere within the range of the spell. Thus, the argument goes, a caster who is completely inside an antimagic field ought to technically be able to cast a fireball spell so long as the caster places the PoO outside of the antimagic field. Obviously, this is patently ridiculous. As Greenfield states above, such an interpretation would make the spell broken. Period. But I digress.

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.[/quote]No, this is not really arguable. A creature occupies the space that they occupy and can only extend out within their reach for the purposes of making attacks. That is the only situation for which the rules ever allows a creature to theoretically be somewhere other than the square(s) it occupies. It might make some logical sense that a caster ought to be able to poke his head outside the area of effect to speak the verbal components and stick his fingers out to use the somatic components, and if you are such a DM, this is all well and good. But the game rules don't allow for it. If they did, it would open up a huge can of worms for all area effects in general. Suppose a caster stuck on the edge of a web spell wants to argue "but my hands were outside the area when the spell was cast so they are free to cast spells right?" This kind of argument ad nauseum.

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.

As I pointed out, the definition of the point of origin is actually pretty specific. It has to be at the intersection of a gridline and within the range of the spell, but the caster chooses it. If it weren't for this, the argument over antimagic field probably wouldn't exist to the extent that it is, but this is so, and thus the argument is there.

But for myself, I can't see any designer ever thinking that a wizard could sit inside an antimagic field and cast horrid wilting, fireball, or whatever on targets who are outside it and believe that to be balanced. Most people agree. Rules lawyers don't because the spell is worded poorly. I prefer to interpret the rules in the spirit of balance and say that all magic has to originate from the caster before any point of origin is determined. So the sitting safely inside the AMF and casting out of it is not possible.

I can entertain the argument that a caster inside an AMF could cast mage armor on himself then step outside and have the spell become active, but in my opinion, that still crosses the line. Consider the wizard who casts AMF then proceeds to cast every single buff spell in the world before dismissing the AMF. If he is standing somewhere (say on a high ledge) where he is practically unreachable, then he is nigh invulnerable until he decides to switch off the AMF, at which point, because of his buff spells, he IS invulnerable for all practical purposes. Compare that to time stop, which only gives you 1d4+1 rounds to buff. And time stop is a 9th level spell. Obviously a 6th-level spell can't be so much better. Sometimes you just have to use the greater context of the game to guide your interpretation of the rules.

Therefore I consider the term "suppress" to be a little more broad than some rules lawyers might argue. Magic just doesn't work inside an AMF. And the only magic effects that persist, are those that existed before the AMF was cast. So 1) cast mage armor, 2) cast AMF and the mage armor is active but suppressed. Do it the other way around where 1) cast AMF, 2) cast mage armor, and the mage armor spell fails. It isn't practical to interpret the spell any other way IMHO. I acknowledge that the technical case for an argument is there, but it wouldn't make sense in the greater context of the game.

 

[Arrowhawk]

First, Rule 0 always applies, so you can do what you want.

But this is incorrect:

Consider the wizard who casts AMF then proceeds to cast every single buff spell in the world before dismissing the AMF. If he is standing somewhere (say on a high ledge) where he is practically unreachable, then he is nigh invulnerable until he decides to switch off the AMF, at which point, because of his buff spells, he IS invulnerable for all practical purposes.

No...the caster in not "nigh invulnderable." In fact, a caster in an AMF is extremely vulnerable...just not to other casters. An AMF field is dandgerous place to stand if any significant portion of your protection comes from magic. You also forget that healing spells won't work their either. So the idea of a mage casting spells from the "protection" of an AMF is severely skewed unless the only thing he has to fight are other mages.

That fact that a mage in an AMF is completely defenseless is a huge "balancing" act. The idea of putting the mage on some high cliff completely inaccessible by conventional weapons is what is game breaking. Nevertheless, anyone with a flight spell or Teleport or Stone to Mud (on the cliff right below the AMF), could still affect the caster. Any melee-type that gets inside that AMF is going to carve that mage up into confetti.

The last place I want my mage to be in any normal encounter is inside an AMF. On the highly unlikely occasion that the only thing I'm fighting is casters....I get the feeling they're going to have their own AMF's.

 

[Jimlock]

While I agree with you that this is absolutely the way the spell is intended to work, the problem that rules lawyers have can be laid out below.This is not technically true. See the description of Area in the SRD. This is mirrored in the RC as Arrowhawk points out above. The key phrase is "you select the point where the spell originates." And it is clear from an objective reading that this point, generally referred to as the "point of origin" or PoO, can be anywhere within the range of the spell. Thus, the argument goes, a caster who is completely inside an antimagic field ought to technically be able to cast a fireball spell so long as the caster places the PoO outside of the antimagic field. Obviously, this is patently ridiculous. As Greenfield states above, such an interpretation would make the spell broken. Period. But I digress. 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.

No, this is not really arguable. A creature occupies the space that they occupy and can only extend out within their reach for the purposes of making attacks. That is the only situation for which the rules ever allows a creature to theoretically be somewhere other than the square(s) it occupies. It might make some logical sense that a caster ought to be able to poke his head outside the area of effect to speak the verbal components and stick his fingers out to use the somatic components, and if you are such a DM, this is all well and good. But the game rules don't allow for it. If they did, it would open up a huge can of worms for all area effects in general. Suppose a caster stuck on the edge of a web spell wants to argue "but my hands were outside the area when the spell was cast so they are free to cast spells right?" This kind of argument ad nauseum.As I pointed out, the definition of the point of origin is actually pretty specific. It has to be at the intersection of a gridline and within the range of the spell, but the caster chooses it. If it weren't for this, the argument over antimagic field probably wouldn't exist to the extent that it is, but this is so, and thus the argument is there.

But for myself, I can't see any designer ever thinking that a wizard could sit inside an antimagic field and cast horrid wilting, fireball, or whatever on targets who are outside it and believe that to be balanced. Most people agree. Rules lawyers don't because the spell is worded poorly. I prefer to interpret the rules in the spirit of balance and say that all magic has to originate from the caster before any point of origin is determined. So the sitting safely inside the AMF and casting out of it is not possible.

I can entertain the argument that a caster inside an AMF could cast mage armor on himself then step outside and have the spell become active, but in my opinion, that still crosses the line. Consider the wizard who casts AMF then proceeds to cast every single buff spell in the world before dismissing the AMF. If he is standing somewhere (say on a high ledge) where he is practically unreachable, then he is nigh invulnerable until he decides to switch off the AMF, at which point, because of his buff spells, he IS invulnerable for all practical purposes. Compare that to time stop, which only gives you 1d4+1 rounds to buff. And time stop is a 9th level spell. Obviously a 6th-level spell can't be so much better. Sometimes you just have to use the greater context of the game to guide your interpretation of the rules.

Therefore I consider the term "suppress" to be a little more broad than some rules lawyers might argue. Magic just doesn't work inside an AMF. And the only magic effects that persist, are those that existed before the AMF was cast. So 1) cast mage armor, 2) cast AMF and the mage armor is active but suppressed. Do it the other way around where 1) cast AMF, 2) cast mage armor, and the mage armor spell fails. It isn't practical to interpret the spell any other way IMHO. I acknowledge that the technical case for an argument is there, but it wouldn't make sense in the greater context of the game.

Well said sir, I agree with you 100%.

Unfortunately I can't XP you.

 

[Jimlock]

Gentlemen ([MENTION=12460]airwalkrr[/MENTION], [MENTION=10324]jonesy[/MENTION], [MENTION=6678119]Jackinthegreen[/MENTION], [MENTION=98256]kitcik[/MENTION], [MENTION=6679551]Arrowhawk[/MENTION], [MENTION=6669384]Greenfield[/MENTION]),

since you 've all participated in this thread and are now aware of the debate over AMF, I kindly ask you to check the following thread and give me, if you may, your opinions/answers on the two questions asked.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/312509-initiate-mystra-questions.html

I thank you in advance.

 

[jefgorbach]

Paragraph2 of your quoted text confirms spells CAN be cast within an AMF and that "Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration."

So while it would pointless to cast Instant/short-lived spells, it IS possible to rebuff/etc while AMF is up and could be an interesting tactic to setup prolonged spells during the AMF to catch high-level foes in an unsuspecting "trap" of multiple effects when they suddenly become simultaneously "active" when the AMF ends.

 

[airwalkrr]

Paragraph2 of your quoted text confirms spells CAN be cast within an AMF and that "Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration."

So while it would pointless to cast Instant/short-lived spells, it IS possible to rebuff/etc while AMF is up and could be an interesting tactic to setup prolonged spells during the AMF to catch high-level foes in an unsuspecting "trap" of multiple effects when they suddenly become simultaneously "active" when the AMF ends.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

Something tells me if EGG were still around and were to weigh in with his opinion on the original intent of the antimagic shell spell (its original name), he would reply with something curt and chiding like this: "Of course a magic-user can't cast a spell inside an antimagic shell, nor would he ever try! Why do you think it was called 'antimagic shell' in the first place?"

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think this spell was ever designed to cause this much of a headache. You're inside the AMF: magic doesn't work. You're outside the AMF: magic works normally. I curse the 3e designers for even adding in the stupid suppression stipulation!

 

[Arrowhawk]

l. Thus, the argument goes, a caster who is completely inside an antimagic field ought to technically be able to cast a fireball spell so long as the caster places the PoO outside of the antimagic field. Obviously, this is patently ridiculous. As Greenfield states above, such an interpretation would make the spell broken. Period.

Apologies for belaboring the point, but I think it's important to play the devil's advocate here once again.

To cast AMF, you need to be at least an 11th level Wizard. It's probably a safe bet that a Wizard at that level is going to be decked out with magic items, not to mention routinely protect him/herself with boat loads of buffs in a battle. As I mentioned before, standing at the center of an AMF field is one of the worst places to be in an traditional combat. You know that Protection From Arrows that makes you ignore the opposing Ranger? Ain't working. You know that permanent See Invisibility you had cast on you? Ain't working. That Barbarian standing in your 5' reach zone? You ain't Holding him. Remember that Hat with +4 Intelligence boost you're wearing? Nada. You're back to having a 20 Int. Probably coming down from the 28 or 30 you normally walk around at.

Any caster who sits in the middle of an AMF to do their blasting is playing with fire. It's hard to argue the spell is "...broken. Period" when one considers the totality of the situation.

And here's another thing to consider, AMF fields used by opposing creatures are exactly what the doctor ordered for those Melee types who don't feel useful with casters. An NPC caster blasting from an AMF is great way to make the caster in the party appreciate the benefit of teammates.

Just something to consider before you get in a rush to Rule 0 an AMF.