It's a shame what is no doubt a useful thread is degenerating like this. But I just can't help myself.
um. No. It's there for all to read, above, so I won't go into it further.
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.
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.
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.")
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.
That is correct - however you could have been right, if only you'd quoted a rule that showed you were right. You did not.Your next argument is that since I'm not Skip Williams, I'm wrong, even when quoting the exact text of the rules.
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.I have, several times. You've dismissed, rather than disproven.
uh...So the problem is that if I'm right, then you're wrong, and that isn't possible?
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."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.
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.
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.)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?
hrm. Funny. Nothing there about lightning bolts passing through. Nothing there about being able to cast through AMF.• 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.
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.
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.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.
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 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.
A point we obviously disagree on. And I believe my reading is supported by one of the game designer's clarification.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.
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.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.
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.")
Last edited: