Casting spells in Antimagic Fields

Jimlock · 11th October 2011, 12:18 PM

A question that I'm sure has been asked before...

Can you "cast" a spell while in an Antimagic Field? Surely all magic effects are "supressed" within it (except those noted), but can you "cast" a spell in it?

I say yes, but perhaps I'm missing something...

Quote:

Antimagic Field
Abjuration
Level: Clr 8, Magic 6, Protection 6, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 10 ft.
Area: 10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you
Duration: 10 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: See text
An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines.

An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration.

Summoned creatures of any type and incorporeal undead wink out if they enter an antimagic field. They reappear in the same spot once the field goes away. Time spent winked out counts normally against the duration of the conjuration that is maintaining the creature. If you cast antimagic field in an area occupied by a summoned creature that has spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against the creature’s spell resistance to make it wink out. (The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)

A normal creature can enter the area, as can normal missiles. Furthermore, while a magic sword does not function magically within the area, it is still a sword (and a masterwork sword at that). The spell has no effect on golems and other constructs that are imbued with magic during their creation process and are thereafter self-supporting (unless they have been summoned, in which case they are treated like any other summoned creatures). Elementals, corporeal undead, and outsiders are likewise unaffected unless summoned. These creatures’ spell-like or supernatural abilities, however, may be temporarily nullified by the field. Dispel magic does not remove the field, though Mage's Disjunction might.

Two or more antimagic fields sharing any of the same space have no effect on each other. Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions). Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this.

Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field.

Arcane Material Component
A pinch of powdered iron or iron filings.

jonesy · 11th October 2011, 05:53 PM

If you have the Initiate of Mystra feat you can.

Jimlock · 11th October 2011, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesy

If you have the Initiate of Mystra feat you can.

This is one point of view. Personally I don't believe it's really supported by RAW.

Here are some arguments I found very convincing in a thread from Giant In The Playground:

POST#8

Quote:

If I had to argue against it, I would say from a balance point of view should a 6th level spell completely protect you from almost all 7th, 8th, 9th and Epic level spells, along with spell-like abilities and supernatural effects for 2+ hours at a time? That seems a bit overpowered to me, even with the downsides it obviously has.

The reason we can argue this is because the RAW never clearly states that the act of spellcasting is itself magical. In fact, by making it an action like any others, it strongly hints that it isn't. Does AMF prevent drinking a potion? It inhibits the potion from taking effect certainly, but it doesn't stop the potions spell from being activated if it has a duration.

If you want a different perspective, then suppose you are a 20th level wizard inside a 13th level wizard's AMF. You have Prismatic Sphere memorized, a spell which is specifically immune to AMF. Can you cast that spell, or does the immunity to AMF apply only after the spell is cast? What about Disjunction, (a 9th level spell that breaks apart even very strong magics that AMF cannot affect) why can't you cast it if one of it's functions is to destroy AMFs?

Anyway, AMF is a bad spell. It's very poorly worded and designed in RAW, with a crazy amount of silly loopholes for a single spell that's way too good at what it does anyway. As a 9th level spell, maybe, or with the stipulation that it has no effect on magic of a higher level than itself. I suspect the whole reason this spell even exists is to make dumb fighters think that they could kill a full-caster if only they got one into an AMF, and that somehow makes their classes "equal."

POST#14

Quote:

I think the wording is VERY precise, and very clear. They very carefully chose the words FUNCTIONING and SUPRESSING rather than being more open and saying that no spell can be cast from inside and no spell can be cast into. They also note that "Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration.". What this means is that any spell can be cast within or without of the field into or out of the field, however it will have NO EFFECT inside the field.

For example...a wizard casts scorching ray on a target outside of the field. The ray's firey magical effect will be supressed against any target inside the field, however it will pass through the field and proceed to strike the target outside of the field.

Another example...the wizard casts Mass Bear's Endurance with himself as the center, and a few allies outside of the field. The spell will be cast on him for it's duration, however he will not receive the effects until he leaves the area of the field, but his allies WILL receive it's benefit.

The spell merely supresses the magical effects, however it has no ability to dispel or end any magical effect. Magical items are not destroyed however their effects cannot be used as their actual existence is considered a magical effect and so they become mundane. There are a few spells that could be confusing, such as fireball...if it detonates inside the magic field does the fire then proceed to extend outside of the antimagic field and strike targets? I would likely say yes but it's probly a DM call even though the wording is pretty clear.

POST#21

Quote:

This is based on RAW and not balance or intend (even though intend could be argued to be clear based on the publication of the RC).

Suppressed is different from being negated, it strongly suggest that the effect is active but non-functioning.

A key part of what has already been quoted is:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRD
An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it
(my emphasis)

So nothing prevents or dispels the use of spells within the area and line of effect is unblocked, which is all that is really needed for casting spells.

Additional rules about area spells and their point of origin was added, but that does not necessarily have anything to do with the caster's position, it only pertains to where the spell is aimed (except for spells where the spell originates from the caster, such as Scorching Ray (which means that there are some limits to the madness)).

POST#25

Quote:

RAW it doesn't seem to me like AMF prevents spellcasting. The spell describes many things it does do, but none of them include "spells cannot be cast inside an antimagic field," which, if they had wanted to, would really be a very simple clarification to add. The fact that it doesn't say this I think makes it pretty clear that spellcasting is allowed inside the field (at least by RAW - I would probably not allow it as a DM regardless of RAW).

As for RAI... well, that really isn't clear either. Yes, a source in Dragon magazine and a source in Faerun imply that spells can't normally be cast in an AMF, but Dragon and Faerun != core rules (and thank god for that...). Their interpretation is not necessarily the correct interpretation.

The note from rules compendium about a spell failing if its point of origin is inside an AMF is unrelated - the "point of origin" of a spell has nothing to do with the caster's position. Point of origin refers to the center point of a spell with an area effect (i.e. where the spell's effect spreads out from). It is somewhat unclear exactly which areas have points of origin - they are specifically mentioned for spheres, cylinders, bursts and emanations, but not for rays, lines or cones. Personally, I would say that a ray, line or cone has a point of origin at a corner of the caster's space. The others, however, all have selectable points of origin, and can be placed away from the caster if he is casting inside an AMF.

Jimlock · 11th October 2011, 07:44 PM

and another interesting thread on the subject:

Casting spells out of an antimagic field?

jonesy · 11th October 2011, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimlock

This is one point of view. Personally I don't believe it's really supported by RAW.

RAW doesn't support Initiate of Mystra? Umm, what are you talking about?

Quote:

Here are some arguments I found very convincing in a thread from Giant In The Playground/COLOR]

Interesting thread. Lots of ideas for casters inside an AMF like Invoke Magic, Extraordinary Spell Aim, Mastery of Shaping and the Sculpt Spell metamagic.

But as for this thread, you haven't actually given an argument yet. Even the GiTP thread is a big RAI vs RAW debate without a clear result.

airwalkrr · 11th October 2011, 08:35 PM

This question has been addressed numerous times via official channels, but it always seems unclear for some reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rules Compendium 11

If an instantaneous spell is entirely suppressed, that spell is effectively canceled.

This, to me, suggests any spell cast with an origination point inside an area of antimagic is canceled. E.g. caster inside antimagic field casts scorching ray and the effect is canceled, whether the target is inside the field or not.

Now to play devil's advocate, I could argue that the term "entirely suppressed" means that both the origination point and the target point have to be within the field for the spell to be canceled. After all, the word "entirely" could be interpreted more broadly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rules Compendium 11

An instantaneous area spell is only entirely suppressed if its point of origin is within the antimagic area.

This quote is part of the same paragraph as the first, which suggests they are meant to be taken as a discussion of the same aspect of the rules. Hence, I think the second part supports my interpretation that a spell is considered entirely suppressed if its point of origin is within the antimagic field. I also believe this interpretation naturally leads to the conclusion that spells cannot be cast while the caster is within the area of antimagic.

So, no, according to my interpretation you can't blast your foes with destruction and flame strike while sitting safely within the effect of an antimagic field and immune to your opponent's magical counterstrikes.

I will also add to the discussion the way antimagic works in Dungeons & Dragons Online (DDO), which, while in no means is a definitive rules source for tabletop D&D, is intended to follow the 3.5 game system as closely as possible. In DDO, when a character enters an area of antimagic (typically a beholder's gaze), any spellcasting attempts by that character fail completely (and use up spell points in the process as if the character had cast the spell). Now antimagic doesn't simply suppress magic in DDO either. It actually dispels all magical effects on the character who enters it, but I imagine this has more to do with the difficulty of programming a suppressing effect compared with the simplicity of programming a dispelling effect.

In summary:
Q: Can you "cast" a spell while in an Antimagic Field?
A: If a caster is completely within the area of an antimagic field when attempting to cast a spell, that spell is canceled and the spell slot used to cast the spell is used up.

Jimlock · 11th October 2011, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesy

RAW doesn't support Initiate of Mystra? Umm, what are you talking about?

I asked:
Can you "cast" a spell while in an Antimagic Field?

And you answered:
If you have the Initiate of Mystra feat you can.

From which I understood the following:
No, but If you have the Initiate of Mystra feat you can.

...so I answered to that

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesy

Interesting thread. Lots of ideas for casters inside an AMF like Invoke Magic, Extraordinary Spell Aim, Mastery of Shaping and the Sculpt Spell metamagic.

But as for this thread, you haven't actually given an argument yet. Even the GiTP thread is a big RAI vs RAW debate without a clear result.

Even though I'm not sure myself, I lean towards the pro-casting arguments:

1) The RAW never clearly state that the act of spellcasting is itself magical.

2) Nowhere does it say that you can't "cast" a spell in an AMF.
The AMFprevents the functioning of magic. The AMF "suppresses" magic.

That's as far as RAW and RAI goes. Personally I think it makes more sense if you CANNOT cast from within an AMF.

jonesy · 11th October 2011, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimlock

I asked:
Can you "cast" a spell while in an Antimagic Field?

And you answered:
If you have the Initiate of Mystra feat you can.

From which I understood the following:
No, but If you have the Initiate of Mystra feat you can.

...so I answered to that

Ah. Ok.

Quote:

Even though I'm not sure myself, I lean towards the pro-casting arguments:

1) The RAW never clearly state that the act of spellcasting is itself magical.

2) Nowhere does it say that you can't "cast" a spell in an AMF.
The AMFprevents the functioning of magic. The AMF "suppresses" magic.

That's as far as RAW and RAI goes. Personally I think it makes more sense if you CANNOT cast from within an AMF.

I actually agree with all of that. Especially the last sentence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by airwalkrr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rules Compendium 11

If an instantaneous spell is entirely suppressed, that spell is effectively canceled.

This, to me, suggests any spell cast with an origination point inside an area of antimagic is canceled.

Quote:

Q: Can you "cast" a spell while in an Antimagic Field?
A: If a caster is completely within the area of an antimagic field when attempting to cast a spell, that spell is canceled and the spell slot used to cast the spell is used up.

Yeah, I don't follow that at all. How do you get from instantaneous spells getting cancelled to all spells getting cancelled?

airwalkrr · 11th October 2011, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesy

Yeah, I don't follow that at all. How do you get from instantaneous spells getting cancelled to all spells getting cancelled?

Context. I was lazy and didn't want to type out the entire section on antimagic from the RC. But here's another key sentence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rules Compendium 11

If a spell's point of origin is inside an antimagic area, that spell is entirely suppressed.

Maybe I should have posted this sentence first since it occurs before the other two passages I quoted. I might be going out on a limb here, but if the spell is entirely suppressed, that seems to indicate the same thing to me as saying it is canceled and the two passages I previously quoted appear to back that up.