Rules Compendium anti magic field example

[mvincent]

Magic bows sound like they are more accurate and more powerful

That's how I used to view it also. However, I learned from other long discussions on the topic that the bow actually imbues the arrow (making it magical, so it can bypass DR/magic). This is also consistent with how other magical bow effects affect arrows.

 

[eamon]

Concerning magic bows and how they're not just more powerful and accurate but also imbue magic into arrows:

That's how I used to view it also. However, I learned from other long discussions on the topic that the bow actually imbues the arrow (making it magical, so it can bypass DR/magic). This is also consistent with how other magical bow effects affect arrows.

Yeah, and also note that enhancement bonuses from arrows and bow overlap (as, I presume, would other effects), strongly suggesting that the magic of the bow isn't irrelevant just as soon as the arrow has left it; it's part of the whole action. There's no difference between a magically enhanced arrow and a magically enhanced bow for the purpose of an attack: so it makes sense not to differentiate in cases like the AMF too.

 

[eamon]

'm not sure why Skip would consider it a reasonable assumption that an Ethereal gaze attack can affect a material creature, when the text for Ethereality states "None of these effects extend from the Ethereal Plane to the Material Plane"...

I suppose that he's making that deduction since gaze attacks are same same but different: they require an amount of action on the victim's side (perception), and you could consider it thus that a gaze attack isn't so much a magical force being pushed from attacker to victim, but rather being pulled by the victim from the source - so a passive gaze attack would affect a material victim if the gazer is ethereal...

...or something...

...since really, it clearly seems as if, in a normal D&D setting, you shouldn't make this kind of wild inferences. A gaze attack is a supernatural affect which can't pass from ethereal to material plane since it's supernatural and no such affects can - bar explicit exception, which isn't specified in the gaze entry. As a matter of fact, the gaze entry explicitly says that it can affect ethereal opponents, being silent on the converse, suggesting that the converse is business as usual: an ethereal effect does not affect a material critter.

affect vs. effect.... linguistic pleasure every time ;-)

 

[Hypersmurf]

affect vs. effect.... linguistic pleasure every time ;-)

xkcd?

-Hyp.

 

[eamon]

xkcd?

-Hyp.

Oh right!

http://xkcd.com/326/

 

[frankthedm]

Spells don’t function in an antimagic area, but an antimagic area doesn’t block line of effect.

Seem clear enough. TBH. Not blocking line of effect is a small price to pay to shut off the acid orb in the anti magic field trick, as "Spells don’t function in an antimagic area" does just that.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Seem clear enough. TBH. Not blocking line of effect is a small price to pay to shut off the acid orb in the anti magic field trick, as "Spells don’t function in an antimagic area" does just that.

Well, the PHB already states "it prevents the functioning of spells within its confines", but it also says "the effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field".

The orb of acid which deals the damage is the effect of an instantaneous conjuration (Orb of Acid), and so according to the PHB is unaffected by the antimagic field. Does the RC excerpt alter this rule?

-Hyp.

 

[frankthedm]

The orb of acid which deals the damage is the effect of an instantaneous conjuration (Orb of Acid), and so according to the PHB is unaffected by the antimagic field. Does the RC excerpt alter this rule?

Instantaneous conjurations don’t get that exception anymore as long as the RC really is the new definitive sorce for antimagic rules. The acid of the orb is part of the non functioning spell. And if someone want to try and claim a currently non magical wall of stone should also wink out, well, that why the game has a DM.

SPELLS
Spells don’t function in an antimagic
area, but an antimagic area
doesn’t block line of effect. If a
spell’s point of origin is inside an
antimagic area, that spell is entirely
suppressed. When a spell’s point
of origin is located outside an antimagic
area, but part of that spell’s
area overlaps the antimagic area, that
spell’s effect is suppressed where the
two areas overlap. Time elapsed within
an antimagic area still counts against a
spell’s duration.
If an instantaneous spell is entirely
suppressed, that spell is effectively canceled.
(It’s suppressed, and its duration
instantaneously expires.) An instantaneous
area spell is only entirely suppressed and
effectively canceled if its point of origin is
within the antimagic area. Otherwise it
works like any other area spell that has
a point of origin outside the antimagic
area—only where its area overlaps the
antimagic area is its effect is suppressed
(and effectively canceled).
A wall of force, prismatic wall, or prismatic sphere isn’t affected
by antimagic. Break enchantment, dispel magic, and greater dispel
magic spells don’t dispel antimagic. Mordenkainen’s disjunction
has a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic
field. If the antimagic fi eld survives the disjunction, no items
within it are disjoined.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Instantaneous conjurations don’t get that exception anymore as long as the RC really is the new definitive sorce for antimagic rules. The acid of the orb is part of the non functioning spell. And if someone want to try and claim a currently non magical wall of stone should also wink out, well, that why the game has a DM.

I was going to use Create Water as my example (since it's the example in the PHB text). It's an instantaneous, non-area spell with a point of origin outside the antimagic area. If I carry the water into the AMF, is the spell suppressed?

The creation school text states that for an instantaneous conjuration, the result does not depend on magic for its existence... so once the effect has formed, suppression of the spell that created it won't cause the effect to vanish.

-Hyp.

 

[frankthedm]

I was going to use Create Water as my example (since it's the example in the PHB text). It's an instantaneous, non-area spell with a point of origin outside the antimagic area. If I carry the water into the AMF, is the spell suppressed?

No more than any other non magical water. However the function of the Create Water spell now can no longer bring the water into being into the AMF.