Casting spells in Antimagic Fields

[Greenfield]

The rules also don't specify whether a club or axe works in an AMF. They only mention swords. The "lack of omission" argument lacks.

What the spell does say is that magical items or effects are suppressed, not dispelled, and that any that leave the AMF (or the AMF moves away from) will resume.

So anything passing through can do so, they simply don't exist within the space of the AntiMagic field.

The fact is, neither the spell description, nor the description of Anti-Magic in general, ever mention anything resembling "line of effect".

And they do specifically say that the AMF doesn't dispel anything.

But let's pick an example other than Fireball. The tiny bead can be seen as a "thing", and the rules are pretty clear that magic "things" can enter (and be suppressed) then leave again and resume normal function.

Let's look instead at two spells: Lightning Bolt and Chain Lightning.

If you cast a Lightning Bolt through an AMF, you're looking at a "line of effect" that is also the area of effect. Areas of effect are explicitly discussed in the AMF spell description.

• 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.

So the AMF may cause a gap in the bolt, but the bolt will resume on the far side of the AMF and will "still function in the normal area". That's pretty clear.

Now let's look at Chain Lightning. You cast Chain Lightning at a group of opponents, the primary target of which is on the far side of an AMF. What happens?

According to the SRD (the same clip in fact), as long as the center of effect isn't in the AMF, the spell works normally. You didn't try to create any spell effect inside the AMF area, nor did the point of origin land inside the AMF. You're clean.

Now the idea that you can cast self-buffs while inside is odd, and highly debatable. I've generally fallen on the side of the debate that says "Why not?" though. The AMF doesn't say you can't cast while inside, you just cant have the target or the starting point of an area be within the field.

That sets a dangerous precedent however, making the AMF the highest form of Globe of Invulnerability, the one that stops all incoming spells, yet lets you cast spells from within with impunity. Okay, okay, rays and cones won't work since the point of origin is you, and you're in the field, but you know what I mean. If you could somehow approach the edge of the AMF then rays and cones would come back into play, since they begin at a corner of your square, and that corner could be out of or at the edge of the field. However, since the AMF is always centered on the caster and has a 10 foot radius, you'd need to have a lot of Reach to pull that one off.

(For the record, the best version of the Globe theme is a Cube of Force. One setting stops any and all spells from entering the area. It says nothing about spells going out. )

The argument for or against allowing casting spells while inside the AMF really balances on a few key words: "used within..." As in,

An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it.

When you cast a spell intended to "go off" outside the AMF, is that spell being "used within" the AMF? Doesn't seem like it to me, but you already know which side of the balance my opinion falls on.

Now the AMF description goes on to say that summoned creatures "wink out" while in the area of an AMF, but says that Golems and such operate normally. Which is odd, since the creation of any Golem uses an Earth Elemental's spirit to give them life. Does that mean that the writers overlooked an obscure detail, or is it an intentional exception? I suspect that it's both.

In any case, I've digressed more than enough. There's nothing to say or suggest that "Line of effect" is interrupted by AMF, and at least one example (Lightning bolt, where Area of Effect and Line of Effect are the same) that seems to break that argument. The various Ray spells would fall into that same category. The "line of effect" many be interrupted, but continues normally once past the AMF, because that's what happens to the "area of effect", and for those spells the two are the same.

 

[Dandu]

Greenfield, what is your take on casting Wall of Force inside an AMF, since it is explicitly not suppressed by an AMF?

 

[Greenfield]

Good question.

My view is that if an AMF encounters an existing Prismatic Wall or Wall of Force (two barriers that are specifically impenetrable by all but a very short list of spells or effects), the Wall spell prevails and blocks the AMF.

Attempting to cast such a spell into an AMF however would fail, as that would run afoul of the restriction on casting spells into such a field.

In short, "possession is nine points of the law" as the old saying goes. Whoever got there first wins.

(Trivia note: It isn't nine tenths of the law, but nine points. The "Law" in question when the quote originated had fourteen points, so "possession" was the greater portion in the balance of things, but not an insurmountable advantage. Thanks and credit to an old Business Law instructor. )

 

[Dandu]

Second question: What about a Prismatic Sphere, which seems to be a self-only buffing spell...

 

[Greenfield]

Prismatic Sphere as a buffing spell? I've never heard it described that way. It's a fortress or a jail cell or a shiny disco ball if you want to use it that way, but it doesn't buff stats or AC or anything else.

Although it isn't the same as the Prismatic Wall (in that it isn't mentioned specifically in the AMF description), I tend to see it in the same light as the Wall version: If it was there first, it wins. If the AMF was there first, there's a hole in the wall, at least until the AMF duration expires.

 

[Dandu]

Sure, it doesn't boost AC, but flat out disallowing anything to pass through it has to count for something, right?

Too bad Skip Williams won't allow me to start casting Prismatic Spheres in an AMF. Oh well.

 

[dakuth]

The rules also don't specify whether a club or axe works in an AMF. They only mention swords. The "lack of omission" argument lacks.

Magic items being suppressed is specifically mentioned. Casting fireballs, or any other spell THROUGH an AMF is not.

What the spell does say is that magical items or effects are suppressed, not dispelled, and that any that leave the AMF (or the AMF moves away from) will resume.

So anything passing through can do so, they simply don't exist within the space of the AntiMagic field.

The fact is, neither the spell description, nor the description of Anti-Magic in general, ever mention anything resembling "line of effect".

Correct. Skip Williams, however, does and it DOES NOT CONFLICT with what is written in the AMF entry.

And they do specifically say that the AMF doesn't dispel anything.

But let's pick an example other than Fireball. The tiny bead can be seen as a "thing", and the rules are pretty clear that magic "things" can enter (and be suppressed) then leave again and resume normal function.

The bead is flavour. One of the important conditions for casting a spell is (this is 3.75, but I'm sure there is similar text in 3.5) "You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast."

AMF blocks LoE, as per Skip Williams, so you can't cast a Fireball through it. The bead doesn't come into it.

Again, I stress, the Core Rules - un-clarified - do not say one way or the other. In lieu of specifically saying it blocks LoE, I would err on the side of allowing it (and that is how I was originally playing.) It doesn't make a great deal of sense... but there you have it.

Once a *designer of the game I am playing* states otherwise though, that is RAI at least, and in my mind RAW too.

Let's look instead at two spells: Lightning Bolt and Chain Lightning.

If you cast a Lightning Bolt through an AMF, you're looking at a "line of effect" that is also the area of effect. Areas of effect are explicitly discussed in the AMF spell description.

So the AMF may cause a gap in the bolt, but the bolt will resume on the far side of the AMF and will "still function in the normal area". That's pretty clear.

No that's wrong. It will go up to the AMF, then stop as it is blocked. AMF discusses how area effects that overlap with AMF don't reach into the AMF... what isn't made clear is that this is because it blocks LoE. More evidence that this was always the RAI. Fortunately for everyone, this is all cleared up when one of the designers clarifies the issue.

Now let's look at Chain Lightning. You cast Chain Lightning at a group of opponents, the primary target of which is on the far side of an AMF. What happens?

Fortunately, by clarifying the LoE situation this is trivial - the spell fails due to lack of LoE to the initial target. This would be the same as having a wall of force between you and an enemy and trying to cast Chain Lighnting on them.

According to the SRD (the same clip in fact), as long as the center of effect isn't in the AMF, the spell works normally. You didn't try to create any spell effect inside the AMF area, nor did the point of origin land inside the AMF. You're clean.

You're correct, except you're initial premise is wrong making your argument invalid.

Now the idea that you can cast self-buffs while inside is odd, and highly debatable. I've generally fallen on the side of the debate that says "Why not?" though. The AMF doesn't say you can't cast while inside, you just cant have the target or the starting point of an area be within the field.

I agree. Skip Williams specifically says you always have LoE to yourself, and as earlier argued in this thread, I think there is a compelling argument that RAW doesn't say you can't, and RAI is that you can cast. The trick here, though, is you can't cast buffs on other people because your LoE will be blocked

That sets a dangerous precedent however, making the AMF the highest form of Globe of Invulnerability, the one that stops all incoming spells, yet lets you cast spells from within with impunity. Okay, okay, rays and cones won't work since the point of origin is you, and you're in the field, but you know what I mean. If you could somehow approach the edge of the AMF then rays and cones would come back into play, since they begin at a corner of your square, and that corner could be out of or at the edge of the field. However, since the AMF is always centered on the caster and has a 10 foot radius, you'd need to have a lot of Reach to pull that one off.

Now that is an interesting argument. Moving to the edge of a AMF field and casting out of it. This is covered IMO. This is similar to being ethereal, and standing inside a wall and trying to cast out of it. I would rule you have no LoE (or LoS for that matter) until you emerge - that is your token is in a square outside the wall. YMMV, but:

a|b

Where a and b are squares, and the | is a solid barrier. To me, it does not matter whether the | is a wall of force, the edge of a 10-foot wall (and (a) is ethereal,) or a is standing in a AMF... in all scenarios, (a) cannot cast until he gets to the other side of the barrier.

(For the record, the best version of the Globe theme is a Cube of Force. One setting stops any and all spells from entering the area. It says nothing about spells going out. )

The argument for or against allowing casting spells while inside the AMF really balances on a few key words: "used within..." As in,

When you cast a spell intended to "go off" outside the AMF, is that spell being "used within" the AMF? Doesn't seem like it to me, but you already know which side of the balance my opinion falls on.

Honestly, by just adopting Skip William's official ruling, it makes everything 100% straight forward. If you cast a spell intended to "go off" outside the AMF... it fails. No LoE.

Now the AMF description goes on to say that summoned creatures "wink out" while in the area of an AMF, but says that Golems and such operate normally. Which is odd, since the creation of any Golem uses an Earth Elemental's spirit to give them life. Does that mean that the writers overlooked an obscure detail, or is it an intentional exception? I suspect that it's both.

It seems quite obvious to me that it is an intentional exception. A balance concession, I'd wager, but having never had to use it in a game I hadn't worried about it. I figured a golem is a big part of the owner's power (since it requires so much investment that could have been spent on other magical items) and having a AMF shut it down would be too powerful.

In any case, I've digressed more than enough. There's nothing to say or suggest that "Line of effect" is interrupted by AMF, and at least one example (Lightning bolt, where Area of Effect and Line of Effect are the same) that seems to break that argument.

There IS something to say. An official ruling from one of the game's designers! Perhaps what you meant to say is "the core rulebooks do not say" ... but "nothing to say" is wrong. Furthermore, lightning bolt DOES NOT break the argument as LoE blocks it! You're argument is "lightning bolt shoots through the AMF, therefore it doesn't block LoE" ........ but you first have to demonstrate that lightning bolt would shoot through the AMF! For that you'd need an official ruling or example that shows as much!

The various Ray spells would fall into that same category. The "line of effect" many be interrupted, but continues normally once past the AMF, because that's what happens to the "area of effect", and for those spells the two are the same.

As explained above, no, they would not. They stop at the AMF's barrier.

 

[dakuth]

doubel post

 

[dakuth]

Greenfield, what is your take on casting Wall of Force inside an AMF, since it is explicitly not suppressed by an AMF?

No, because you only have a LoE to yourself in a AMF, and you can't cast Wall on yourself

Second question: What about a Prismatic Sphere, which seems to be a self-only buffing spell...

A harder one, but still no. It is "centered on you", but not targeted to you. It is actually targeted to the square in which you stand... which you don't have LoE to in an AMF (you only have LoE to yourself.)

 

[Greenfield]

No, because you only have a LoE to yourself in a AMF, and you can't cast Wall on yourself

A harder one, but still no. It is "centered on you", but not targeted to you. It is actually targeted to the square in which you stand... which you don't have LoE to in an AMF (you only have LoE to yourself.)

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?