Casting spells in Antimagic Fields

[dakuth]

It's a shame what is no doubt a useful thread is degenerating like this. But I just can't help myself.

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.

um. No. It's there for all to read, above, so I won't go into it further.

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

That is correct - however you could have been right, if only you'd quoted a rule that showed you were right. You did not.

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

I don't need to disprove, if you don't provide any evidence. You keep claiming that the rules clearly say ("in black and white") that spells pass right through AMF. Then you go ahead and quote a section of rules... that says nothing of the sort. I have no idea why you think you have.

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

uh...

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.

uh... no... it's not. Putting aside the fact you have no exact quoting at all ... let's say you meant something like "What I've been saying is exactly what the rules are saying."

For that to be true, what you'd need is a quote like the following:
"For example, if a lightning bolt is cast through an antimagic field it would have no effect on targets inside the AMF, but would continue on and affect targets on the side."

Or perhaps a little addition to the AM rules when talking about overlapping areas "this does not block line of effect."

Without that, it certainly is open to interpretation (although see concession below, where I think it is fair to say it does not block LoE without further clarification.) The point is: If a game designer is to come out and say "antimagic field blocks LoE", unless you can quote a section of the rules that explicitly proves it does not (e.g. above two quotes) - it is SURELY RAI.

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?

uh... Let's just grab the text of rules, shall we? You've been so kind as to quote them... (makes me wonder why you think something is there, when it is not.)

• 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.

hrm. Funny. Nothing there about lightning bolts passing through. Nothing there about being able to cast through AMF.

Now, I did concede that it is not entirely clear. You *could* interpret it to mean that if a thin spell area was laid down over a thin AMF, a portion is "snipped" out. This doesn't make *any* sense, logically, but it is magic and anything could happen.

The other, more sane, way to read it is that it blocks LoE.

Having said that (and here's a big concession you can take if you like) those rules, right there, imply more strongly that it WOULD continue on. It's certainly not "black and white." You certainly haven't provided any rule quotation that shows that lightning bolts definitely pass through, so therefore AMF definitely works like that. (That's circular logic, btw. 'I believe AM rules allow lightning bolt to pass through. I believe lightning bolts pass through, therefore the AM rules are right.')

So the rules are unclear, and the default reading seems to be insane. What is one to do? Wouldn't the logical solution be to look for a ruling by someone with authority? An errata, a version update, a statement from the designers, a statement from a single designer.... ?? Anything?

Yes. And we have that. And I have being bringing it up every. single. post.

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.
...
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.

Disingenuous is pretty unfair. I clearly gave three similar scenarios. All these scenarios had one thing in common - a solid barrier between a and b.

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.

It was actually Passwall - but it wasn't until later in the debate I realised it opened an entire passage. I'm sure there must be other ways to stand in a solid wall though.

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.

A point we obviously disagree on. And I believe my reading is supported by one of the game designer's clarification.

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.

I've also found it frustrating for basically the same reasons - I've tried to keep it civil (and I don't think you strayed too far outside that TBH) but I may have not always been successful. If I have not, please accept my apologies.

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.

ah ha. I'm loathe to start another one but food for thought: Perhaps only AoE spells have a "point of origin"? (Which is what I assume you mean by "starting point.")

 

[Greenfield]

I'll keep it brief:

• 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 if the Lightning Bolt area is 100 feet long (just to pick a number), and 20 feet of that are in an AMF, then the spell should "still function in the normal area". Per the rules, in black and white, an exact quote.

Not an opinion, interpretation, or twist of wording, phrasing or logic. That is *EXACTLY* what it says. The only part missing from the rules is the Lightning Bolt specific example.

From your side, the only part missing from the rules is your entire position. There is absolutely nothing in the written rules to say that an AMF blocks Line of effect. (If I'm mistaken, then please include the appropriate section of the SRD, as I have done.)

To repeat, the spell that partially includes an AMF will still function normally over the rest of its area unless the spell is centered in the AMF.

Please explain how this reading is wrong, preferably by doing something other than saying "Because LOE is blocked by the AMF".

Every example I've provided to disprove the LOE blockage *OPINION* has been dismissed BECAUSE it disproves the LOE blockage opinion. That's a perfect example of arguing in bad faith.

What's funny to me (no sarcasm or put-down here) is that you have a problem with "quantum tunneling" of a Lightning Bolt (an effect that really exists and is 100% appropriate for a charged particle stream entering an area where it cannot exist in its current state), but can accept magical lightning. I normally hate attempts to argue physics in a magical world, but the parallel was just too good.

<edit>Yes, I can see the argument that AOE spells have a "point of origin". However, AMF specifically says that casting spells into an AMF automatically fails. Pretty clear, over all.</edit>

 

[Dandu]

Greenfield, you foolish fool! You have forgotten that the Lightening Bolt has a point of origin that starts from the caster!

You release a powerful stroke of electrical energy that deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to each creature within its area. The bolt begins at your fingertips.

The written fluff of the spell clearly indicates that travels from the caster onwards, and can be used to irrefutably justify an AMF suppressing it if Lightning Bolt travels through its space, just like an AMF would suppress Shout or Fireball!

 

[dakuth]

I'll keep it brief:

So if the Lightning Bolt area is 100 feet long (just to pick a number), and 20 feet of that are in an AMF, then the spell should "still function in the normal area". Per the rules, in black and white, an exact quote.

Not an opinion, interpretation, or twist of wording, phrasing or logic. That is *EXACTLY* what it says. The only part missing from the rules is the Lightning Bolt specific example.

From your side, the only part missing from the rules is your entire position. There is absolutely nothing in the written rules to say that an AMF blocks Line of effect. (If I'm mistaken, then please include the appropriate section of the SRD, as I have done.)

To repeat, the spell that partially includes an AMF will still function normally over the rest of its area unless the spell is centered in the AMF.

Please explain how this reading is wrong, preferably by doing something other than saying "Because LOE is blocked by the AMF".

Every example I've provided to disprove the LOE blockage *OPINION* has been dismissed BECAUSE it disproves the LOE blockage opinion. That's a perfect example of arguing in bad faith.

What I am, and have been, saying is this:
The rules as written are a head-scratcher. They don't make a great deal of sense, exactly because they seem to imply the effects you're describing. Due to the head-scratching nature, it is very fair to say "they're not clear"

So when a designer steps in, and clarifies the rules by saying "AMF blocks LoE", then yes AMF *does block LoE*. Every example you have given are not proving *anything*. They are the EFFECTS of what *would* happen if AMF did not block LoE. Since Skip Williams has said AMF blocks LoE you need to do one of two things to refute it:
1) Show a rule in the books that refutes it. No, the AMF rules do not refute it. AMF blocking LoE *does not contradict the written rules at all.*
2) Show a another designer, or collaboration of designers contradicting Mr. William's statement.

This is really the circle we've been running around for about 2 pages now. I say "show me this" you say "the rules do" I say "no they don't" and away we go again. Although I hate the cliche' it may be time to say we agree to disagree on "the rules do".

What's funny to me (no sarcasm or put-down here) is that you have a problem with "quantum tunneling" of a Lightning Bolt (an effect that really exists and is 100% appropriate for a charged particle stream entering an area where it cannot exist in its current state), but can accept magical lightning. I normally hate attempts to argue physics in a magical world, but the parallel was just too good.

Yes indeedy, quantum tunnelling is a real phenomenon (or so I'm told by people in the know) but go ahead and push on a wall and wait for the quantum tunnelling to get you through. I heard it would take significantly longer than the universe has to live for you to have a reasonable chance of that occurring.

When we throw things against solid barriers (or lightning bolts for that matter with... I dunno, a tesla gun/coil/thingo) we rightly predict it will not pass through. Passing through would be "weird" regardless of why (quantum tunnelling or antimagic fields.)

<edit>Yes, I can see the argument that AOE spells have a "point of origin". However, AMF specifically says that casting spells into an AMF automatically fails. Pretty clear, over all.</edit>

 

[Greenfield]

Greenfield, you foolish fool! You have forgotten that the Lightening Bolt has a point of origin that starts from the caster!

The written fluff of the spell clearly indicates that travels from the caster onwards, and can be used to irrefutably justify an AMF suppressing it if Lightning Bolt travels through its space, just like an AMF would suppress Shout or Fireball!

Ah, how could I have overlooked such a basic argument?

Oh, wait a minute, I didn't! That was my Lightning Bolt argument in a nutshell. The area of the spell is a Line, starting at the caster. Where it overlays with an AMF the spell is suppressed (but not cancelled or dispelled), but for the rest of the area it works normally, exactly as the rules say it will.

<Edit>To expand: Let's look at your Fireball reference. AMF is a 10 foot radius. Fireball is a 20 foot radius. So I drop a Fireball just outside the AMF. By the rules, it goes off (it wasn't centered inside the AMF). That part isn't in question.

Does the Fireball cover the area not included in the AMF? Think of two circles, one half the size of the other, and inside the larger one. By the rules, the entire area of that larger circle is the Fireball, and the inside of the smaller circle is left untouched because the AMF suppressed the Fireball in that area. Note that the rules never say "blocked" or "dispelled". Within the AMF, no flames. Outside the AMF, flames. That's what the rules say, in black and white, and that's what I'm arguing.</EDIT>

 

[Dandu]

BUT THAT"S NOT WHAT SKIP WILLIAM SAYS!!!one!

 

[Greenfield]

What I am, and have been, saying is this:
The rules as written are a head-scratcher. They don't make a great deal of sense, exactly because they seem to imply the effects you're describing. Due to the head-scratching nature, it is very fair to say "they're not clear"

So, because the rules say something, they're a head scratcher? (Note, they don't "imply" anything, they come right out and say it.)

That's actually where you lose me. I've done cut-and-paste straight from the SRD several times, and you even repeated the pertinent section, all the while claiming that I haven't quoted anything.

When you finally acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, my posts weren't a digitally enhanced hallucination, that I really did take quotes straight from the SRD, you asked me if my position was an interpretation. Never mind the fact that I had said, repeatedly, that it wasn't.

So rather than slam my head into the stone wall of your intransigence, I'll simply ask (again): Show me anywhere in the rules where it says that AMF blocks Line of Effect. (Noting that Skip Williams' opinion is not the rules.)

Read the section we've both quoted regarding areas that include an AMF, and explain to me how that can be read any other way than to say that the spell operates normally in the area outside the AMF.

Explain to me how the section in question is unclear. What's unclear about it? Here, I'll include it again.

• 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.

Please point to the part that isn't clear, that brings into question (on any level) whether a spell will function normally in any part of its area that isn't inside the AMF. Quote the exact text please.

So when a designer steps in, and clarifies the rules by saying "AMF blocks LoE"...

When a designer steps in and contradicts the rules by saying "AMF blocks LOE"...

Wouldn't that be a better way of phrasing that? His expressed opinion runs contrary to what is written in the rules, doesn't it?

1) Show a rule in the books that refutes it. No, the AMF rules do not refute it. AMF blocking LoE *does not contradict the written rules at all.*
2) Show a another designer, or collaboration of designers contradicting Mr. William's statement.

In answer to question 1: Please see pretty much every previous argument I have made, or take a moment and read the bloody rules! AMF suppresses spells in its area, and only in its area. It doesn't block or suppress them outside of its area, and there's nothing in there to even hint at a suggestion that it would. In fact, it says very clearly that it won't.

In answer to question 2: I have cited the written works of all the authors combined (including Mr. Williams.). They say that when an area of effect includes an AMF, the spell functions normally outside the AMF, unless the spell is centered inside the AMF.

This is really the circle we've been running around for about 2 pages now. I say "show me this" you say "the rules do" I say "no they don't" and away we go again. Although I hate the cliche' it may be time to say we agree to disagree on "the rules do".

I agree. I quote the exact rules, even tell you where to find them, and then you deny that I've quoted anything. I've presented examples, based on those rules, to show how LOE isn't blocked, and you dismiss them specifically because they show that LOE isn't blocked.

Great way to "win" an argument, I suppose. Just presume that you're right and that anything that shows otherwise doesn't exist.

You've mounted exactly zero in terms of counter arguments, other than to cite Mr. Williams over and over again. And, as you've already admitted, Skip gets it wrong sometimes, giving opinions and examples that directly contradict the published rules. That kind of shows that he isn't an infallible expert on the game.

To be fair, the sheer volume of the rules and the collective nature of the work would make it hard for anyone to recall the letter of every rule. Some parts of the book contradict themselves (table v text most of the time).

But if Skip Williams said, "In D&D, 2+2=5", the fact that he's an author doesn't make him a mathematician.

Yes indeedy, quantum tunnelling is a real phenomenon (or so I'm told by people in the know) but go ahead and push on a wall and wait for the quantum tunnelling to get you through. I heard it would take significantly longer than the universe has to live for you to have a reasonable chance of that occurring.

Quantum tunneling applies on the subatomic level, involving charged particles, not your hand against a wall. And in fact they have caused an electron stream to tunnel a bit over 10 yards (if memory serves me correctly), and yes, they erected barriers in the "forbidden zone" to prove that the stream had bypassed that area.

And it didn't take anything like a cosmic time frame for it to happen in, either.

When we throw things against solid barriers (or lightning bolts for that matter with... I dunno, a tesla gun/coil/thingo) we rightly predict it will not pass through. Passing through would be "weird" regardless of why (quantum tunnelling or antimagic fields.)

Agreed. It would take a special condition that said that the charged particles can't exist in their current state in the area of that solid barrier.

By the way, the AMF essentially says that the "charged particles" of the Lightning Bolt can't exist within it's area in their current (magical) state.

But since physics (even delightfully weird physics like quantum effects) really have no place in a discussion of a magical fantasy game, I agree with you: Better to stop that part now.

 

[Dandu]

The following post may be useful for the conversation.

The US Constitution is a document which lays the legal foundations of my nation. There were many parties involved in the drafting of this document. After the Constitution was ratified, the government had to interpret the Constitution - and naturally there were many disagreements on what was and was not permissible according to the Constitution, even among the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson was famous for his long feud with John Adams, for instance.

Now, just because Thomas Jefferson says that the Constitution allows him to purchase the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon did not necessarily mean that it did in fact allow him to do so - and just because John Adams thought that the Alien and Sedition acts were legal did not make it legal. Interpreting the Constitution falls under the purview of the Supreme Court.

Bottom line is, one man's opinion means diddly unless he can back it up with a well reasoned argument.

 

[nogray]

Mostly agreeing with Greenfield

The rules for antimagic effects pretty clearly align with most of what [MENTION=6669384]Greenfield[/MENTION] is saying.

Skip's statement that, "antimagic fields block line of effect," directly conflicts with the rules for antimagic quoted from the SRD (and the corresponding text in the DMG on page 290) that states, "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." This is (or should be) self-evident for many configurations of various lines, bursts, emanations, and spreads that include the area of an antimagic zone of some sort.

Key:
Each symbol = 5-ft-square
A = area of Antimagic
X = area of effect
O = area that, if Skip is right, line of effect is blocked
C = area where Skip's rule would block one, two, or three corners

Cone of Cold (60 ft cone-shaped burst) intersecting an Antimagic Field spell:

 X X X X X X X X X X X X
 X X X X A A C C C C C
 X X X A A A A O O O O
 X X X A A A A O O O
 X X X C A A O O O O
 X X X C C O O O O
 X X X X C C O O O
 X X X X X C C O
 X X X X X C C
 X X X X X
 X X X
 X

Statements I hope we can all agree on:

1. The X, A, C, and O squares, above, are all "in the normal area" for a properly oriented Cone of Cold.
2. The spell as cast includes, "both an antimagic area and a normal area."
3. The X, O, and C squares are not in the antimagic area.
4. The Cone of Cold is not "centered in the antimagic area."
5. The X squares are definitely affected by the cone of cold.
6. The A squares suppress the cone of cold, so they aren't affected.

Looking at the statements above and the rule quoted from the SRD and DMG, I can only conclude that the C and O squares are also affected normally by the Cone of Cold. Here is the breakdown:

"Spell areas that include both an antimagic area (the A squares) and a normal area (the X, O, and C squares), but are not centered in the antimagic area (ours is in the top left corner of the top left X, so we are clear), still function in the normal area (those X, O, and C squares)."

If Skip were correct, then that sentence can not be followed. The O and C squares would be blocked (or in the case of the C squares, some level of cover would apply), and the spell would not "still function in the normal area."

Where I disagree with Greenfield is that "tunneling" is possible. The way I see it, any object solid enough to normally block the line of effect for the attack (or other) spell would also block the line of effect for the antimagic field's emanation. That means (to me) that the other spell would come back into effect and try to damage (or otherwise interact with) the object as normal.

 

[Greenfield]

Oh, I agree that quantum tunneling through a wall was one hell of a stretch.