A-M vs. Dead Magic (?)

[nonsi256]

Ok, here are the changes I'm thinking of making regarding both effects.

I'd like some feedback on the repercussions of these changes and if they sit well in the imagination:


A-M and Dead Magic are significantly different from one another.
In A-M it is difficult to cast spells and impossible to maintain magical effects.
Dead Magic zones are simply places where the weave (the "energy" source) doesn't exist. Therefore, Inside Dead Magic zone it is impossible to cast spells, but spell effects are unaffected in anyway by Dead Magic zones.

In A-M, you must make a successful caster level check vs. DC [11 + ½ the caster level of the A-M + the SL you're trying to cast]. In A-M, a successfully cast spell activates only if its initial point of effect is outside the A-M. Side-effects (such as AoE energy damage – fireball blast for instance) ignore the A-M field, while actual magical effects (such as Incendiary Cloud) are suppressed by the A-M.

 

[Greenfield]

Alternately, just as an experiment you understand, we could leave A-M and Dead Magic alone.

Just to see how it works, understand.

Sarcasm aside, I see no reason to mess with something that works. Anti-Magic and Dead Magic fit into the game world and the system quite well, and don't unbalance things in any significant way.

 

[nonsi256]

Anti-Magic and Dead Magic fit into the game world and the system quite well, and don't unbalance things in any significant way.

Apparently, A-M isn't defined all that well.

And with Dead Magic, that's supposed to be the nullifier of all mortal magic, some people can give everyone else the finger and gain a huge advantage (that's another one in favor of CoDZilla).

 

[James the Newbie]

Antimagic field is defined just fine, it causes problems with munchkins, but for any reasonable use your DM's ruling should work just fine. Its pretty much common sense.

You cant cast within it, there is no line of effect within it, and any duration spell is temporarily suppressed.

I know I brought up initiate of mysteria earlier to, but a debate about that is probably a separate topic entirely.

 

[Alzrius]

From what I recall, Second Edition and Basic D&D had some slight differentiation between the two.

Presuming I recall correctly, it was that an antimagic field couldn't affect gods and artifacts, whereas a dead magic zone could.

 

[the Jester]

In A-M, a successfully cast spell activates only if its initial point of effect is outside the A-M. Side-effects (such as AoE energy damage – fireball blast for instance) ignore the A-M field, while actual magical effects (such as Incendiary Cloud) are suppressed by the A-M.

So you can fireball people in an antimagic field as long as the center of the burst is outside the field?

Put me down as "strongly dislike."

 

[nonsi256]

So you can fireball people in an antimagic field as long as the center of the burst is outside the field?

1. In the discussion I linked to, above, some found it reasonable that A-M doesn't prohibit spellcasting at all. I just added a DC one must scale to succeed.
2. With my approach, if you're close enough to the center of the blast, you take damage normally.

 

[Greenfield]

Apparently, A-M isn't defined all that well.

And with Dead Magic, that's supposed to be the nullifier of all mortal magic, some people can give everyone else the finger and gain a huge advantage (that's another one in favor of CoDZilla).

Actually, I think it's defined quite clearly.

But something I said about real life also pertains to games: "My dearest hope is that someday there will be a law so well and clearly written that even a lawyer can understand it."

The same can be said for rules and rules lawyers.

I've known people who argued long and hard about whether or not one plus one equaled two. (I'm not kidding.) So the fact that you can find people who choose not to understand a rule doesn't mean that there's some fault in the rule. Sometimes it's a chase of people who see "one plus one" and want eleven instead of two.

Your "approach" would say "Anti-Magic doesn't mean anti-magic, it just means it's a high level casters only club."

The thing about rewriting selective rules is that it seldom takes the rest of the rules into account. And it's incredibly hard to do just one thing. There are always unintended consequences, and consequences of those consequences. The ripples go on for a while, and it's really hard to see how far they'll go, or what else they'll affect.

For me, A-M rules fall into the category of, "If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it." So if you must "fix" the A-M rules, fix them to do what they were intended to do, instead of trying to turn them into something completely new.

 

[nonsi256]

Actually, I think it's defined quite clearly.

But something I said about real life also pertains to games: "My dearest hope is that someday there will be a law so well and clearly written that even a lawyer can understand it."

The same can be said for rules and rules lawyers.

I've known people who argued long and hard about whether or not one plus one equaled two. (I'm not kidding.) So the fact that you can find people who choose not to understand a rule doesn't mean that there's some fault in the rule. Sometimes it's a chase of people who see "one plus one" and want eleven instead of two.

Your "approach" would say "Anti-Magic doesn't mean anti-magic, it just means it's a high level casters only club."

The thing about rewriting selective rules is that it seldom takes the rest of the rules into account. And it's incredibly hard to do just one thing. There are always unintended consequences, and consequences of those consequences. The ripples go on for a while, and it's really hard to see how far they'll go, or what else they'll affect.

For me, A-M rules fall into the category of, "If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it." So if you must "fix" the A-M rules, fix them to do what they were intended to do, instead of trying to turn them into something completely new.

1. I recognize nothing in the description of A-M that says you can't cast spells / use Sp / Su powers or activate magical devices with in A-M, or that such actions are liable to fail. All it says is "suppresses". So, by RAW, it's easier than what I propose. This tells me that in this case [RAW = RAI]. I just don't agree that it should be trivial.
2. Antimagic Field is dismissable, meaning that for all intents and purposes it's not only an active, but also a reactive spell effect.
3. I see no reason why a 6th level spell should be the ultimate off-switch.

 

[Alzrius]

3. I see no reason why a 6th level spell should be the ultimate off-switch.

Without addressing the rest of what you wrote, the idea of mid-level spells auto-defeating higher-level ones is something of a (distasteful, at least to me) D&D tradition; just look at true seeing.