Rules Compendium anti magic field example

[fanboy2000]

Let's say the Rules Compendium states that a Medium longsword deals 1d10 damage. Either a/ the RC is considered errata and/or primary, and overrules the PHB's assertion that it's 1d8; or b/ the RC is not considered errata and/or primary, and is in error any time it differs from the source. In case b/, it would be better for the RC to effectively contain photocopies of the primary source material, since any changes it makes are irrelevant anyway.

My understanding is A: the RC is considered errata. I called up WotC just now and asked them point blank "If the RC contradicts the PHB, even most recent printing with errata, does the RC supersede the PHB?" The answer is yes. I then asked stealth errata. Yes, even if there is no errata on the website for that rule or, in the case of the Spell Compendium, spell, the RC or SC supersedes any earlier version.

 

[mvincent]

Either a/ the RC is considered errata and/or primary, and overrules the PHB's assertion that it's 1d8

I don't think we can assume it is errata unless it specifically says so. Saying it "incorporates official errata" appears to be semantically different (but maybe WotC does mean this). Still, if the whole book is to be considered errata, it should probably say so somewhere in it.

Personally: I consider anything that provides new rules, clarifies ambiguous rules, or declares that they are changing the rules to have primacy. Conversely, if it appears like it could be a mistake and clearly contradicts previous rules, I'd likely view it as a mistake.

 

[mvincent]

I called up WotC just now and asked them point blank "If the RC contradicts the PHB, even most recent printing with errata, does the RC supersede the PHB?" The answer is yes.

Thanks for the information! I stand corrected. Good to know.

(now if I could just get that phone number from you ...)

 

[fanboy2000]

(now if I could just get that phone number from you ...)

1-800-324-6496

Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm PST

I don't call them often, but WotC customer service and Skip Williams as the Sage have bailed me out a couple of times.

 

[aland]

That implies that say, an archmage with master of shaping could freely cast spells outside of his AMF (while still nerfing anyone trying to get near him... especially powerful if the archmage is flying).

Please tell me this would never happen

 

[Hypersmurf]

Please tell me this would never happen

It's a natural consequence of the ruling that AMF doesn't block LoE. It means that he can still be targeted or subject to area spells etc, since inside his 'bubble' spells will take effect as normal - so it's not so much useful for a mage duel, as it is protection from people who require magic to approach him.

If he isn't flying, it's less useful... someone can still charge him, and by the time they're grappling him, all their magic is back online.

Even flying, I can see people flying up above him, then dropping down through the AMF into the bubble...

-Hyp.

 

[aland]

Doesn't one need to make a touch attack before he/she enter the other's place. So if you ended up in an AMF and get all the magical bonuses suppressed, it might be hard to touch the wizard with multiple buffs on him/her/whateverself. More deadly if employed by a melee-oriented arcane build, since the AMF would make most of its foes vulnerable, while it could happily buff itself and chop them into pieces. Worse when it has a pair of rings called counterspellispel,Greater.

 

[Plane Sailing]

"A magic weapon used to attack...a creature inside an antimagic area, gains none of the benefits of its magic properties."

Ah, but does a magic bow help the aiming and power of the shot, or does it just imbue magic into the arrow in some way?

What about an arrow fired by someone with an bow who is under an enlarge spell?

If the compendium were serious at demystifying certain things, they ought to have considered and explained the corner cases. It wasn't as if I spent a long time (or in fact any time) thinking up those basic questions...

 

[mvincent]

Ah, but does a magic bow help the aiming and power of the shot, or does it just imbue magic into the arrow in some way?

From earlier discussions on this, it appears to be the later (since such arrows can penetrate DR/magic). This fits with the ruling.

What about an arrow fired by someone with an bow who is under an enlarge spell?

The enlarge spell says:
"Any enlarged item that leaves an enlarged creature’s possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown weapons deal their normal damage, and projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them."

So I guess an enlarged weapon grants more power to an arrow (regardless of AMF considerations).

But I agree: the Rules Compendium doesn't really seem to answer any questions.

 

[Elemmakil]

They don't tackle any of the thorny questions (instantaneous conjurations, magic arrows fired from a magic bow into an antimagic field)

Actually, it does answer the question about magic arrows and magic bows:

A magic weapon used to attack from inside an anti magic area, or one used to attack a creature inside an antimagic area, gains none of the benefits of its magic properties.

It just says weapon, not melee weapon. Hence, neither the magic arrows nor bow would function.

I wasn't even aware that there was debate about instantaneous conjurations. I don't see why the effects would be considered magical.

-Elemmakil