Antimagic Confusion

[Oryan77]

You just said that it is RAW that you can cast within the area, but saying that it doesn't say you can't does not make it RAW. So basically, it's not RAW and you are making an assumption or an interpretation.

Kind of makes you wonder why they conspicuously avoided that point, doesn't it?

I don't really understand why you would come to that conclusion. It needs to be stated? Common sense tells me that if a spell can't work inside the area cause it is an antimagic area, then you can't cast inside that area to make a spell effect outside the area. That wouldn't even make any sense. It doesn't need to be stated cause it's common sense and it is implied when the rules say, "No supernatural ability, spell-like ability, or spell works in an area of antimagic".

If magic does not work in that area, you are not a magician. If you are not a magician, you can't cast spells. If you can't cast spells, no spells can appear outside of that area. There is no interpretation in this case. There is only stupidity.

 

[Greenfield]

It also doesn't explicitly say I can cast during daylight, or while barefoot, or on a Saturday. But since the rules in general say that a spell caster can cast spells, then the caster can cast spells unless there's a rule that says they can't.

In this case, there is no rule that says they can't.

As for your appeal to "common sense", you're presuming that everyone's "common sense" agrees with yours. It also presumes that we're talking about "rules as intended". I've been clear, we're talking about "rules as written".

The rules walk all around that point, mentioning every aspect of magic and casting except that one. They could have just said, "Spells can't be cast into or out of an Antimagic Field". They could have said, "Antimagic fields suppress the use of any and all magic in their area.", which would have covered items, spells, casting, the whole thing. For whatever reason, they didn't. They mentioned items. They mentioned spells coming in. They mentioned spells coming near. They mentioned spells overlapping. They mentioned spells that are in place, are suppressed while the AMF is ther, then resume again when the AMF leaves. They talked about area and duration and point of origin, and everything *except* actually casting a spell from within an AMF.

It's almost as if they left that hole on purpose. And yes, I've known game designers who did things like that, if only because they were also players who liked taking advantage that way.

So, is it something anyone with "common sense" would allow? Probably not. But ink on paper doesn't have common sense. It doesn't argue, can't be persuaded, won't change its mind. It just says what it says, and we have to either live with it or house rule around it.

 

[Oryan77]

I don't know man. All I can say at this point is if a player came at me with that line of logic, I'd laugh and assume he's just trying to use a loophole and take advantage of a spell, knowing dang well that he knows he's full of crap. It's an antimagic area, so how can you cast a spell, while in that area. It sounds like a ridiculous argument to make to me. It sounds so ridiculous, that I don't even see a need for it to be pointed out in the rules in the same manner that other criteria needs to be pointed out.

Plus then you'd have to start nitpicking little things like, "How does my material components or divine focus item activate the magic if no magic is present to be activated?" Then we gotta start contemplating how magical energy works, how the magic is generated, where it comes from and if it generates from the caster or from the components, or just directly to the point of origin, if midichlorians are involved, and so on. Or I could just say, "Look numbskull, spells don't work in the area, neither does casting because casting is "magical". Stop trying to take advantage of the spell with a bunch of nonsense."

 

[Greenfield]

I don't know man. All I can say at this point is if a player came at me with that line of logic, I'd laugh and assume he's just trying to use a loophole and take advantage of a spell, knowing dang well that he knows he's full of crap. It's an antimagic area, so how can you cast a spell, while in that area. It sounds like a ridiculous argument to make to me. It sounds so ridiculous, that I don't even see a need for it to be pointed out in the rules in the same manner that other criteria needs to be pointed out.

I agree wholeheartedly. Like I said, I'd cast "Dispel BS" on that as soon as it came up.

But there it is, the difference between "Rules as Written" and "Rules as Intended". Being sane DMS who aren't into the Munchkin thing, we try to play RAI whenever possible. But at the same time, i like my rules written down in black and white. If there's a dispute, I like to be able to point to the text that backs me up. It might not make me right, in terms of making sense, but at least it's inarguable. If the book says, "That thing catches fire", then we stop arguing about that and move on to trying to put it out.

Personally I try to avoid technical arguments with rules lawyers though. What was the old saying? "Don't try to mud wrestle a pig. You both end up muddy, but the pig likes it."

Plus then you'd have to start nitpicking little things like, "How does my material components or divine focus item activate the magic if no magic is present to be activated?" Then we gotta start contemplating how magical energy works, how the magic is generated, where it comes from and if it generates from the caster or from the components, or just directly to the point of origin, if midichlorians are involved, and so on. Or I could just say, "Look numbskull, spells don't work in the area, neither does casting because casting is "magical". Stop trying to take advantage of the spell with a bunch of nonsense."

I've never considered the material components or divine foci to be "magical" in and of themselves. I mean, pinches of dust, fluffs of lamb's wool, little glass rods, balls of bat droppings etc don't show up on a Detect Magic, do they? Neither do holy symbols, as far as I know. So, since they aren't "magical" in and of themselves, the AMF wouldn't matter to them.

We could go on, but let's not. We agree in essence, and that makes for a good stopping point.

 

[Oryan77]

"Don't try to mud wrestle a pig. You both end up muddy, but the pig likes it."

I've never heard that, but I laughed.

So, since they aren't "magical" in and of themselves, the AMF wouldn't matter to them.

I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that they act as a key to produce the magic as if the magic comes from within or around the caster or components. Not that they are magical components. And not that this matters, cause it's in relation to my "nitpicking how magic works" comment that you are quoting. Which is a lighthearted observation and not meant to be a serious debate to defend my point. I was basically saying, "I wouldn't want to go down that road to defend my point with a rules lawyer."

 

[Greenfield]

Yeah. The pig likes it.

 

[WaroftheSendros]

This argument came up last week so we decided to house rule anti-magic a bit, generally deciding that if you are within the anti-magic field you cannot cast and if you are casting into an anti-magic field you cannot cast. (You can however cast through an anti-magic field to another section no within the anti-magic field). However, it is clearly down to your DM to choose in the event of confusion, so what they say goes, this is just what ours chose.

War of the Sendros

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

I don't know what the official call is on this subject, but I'd prefer the ability to cast, so as to apply a number of buff spells that wouldn't be visible until stepping out of the field.

Than you'd be instantly monstrous.

 

[Greenfield]

Yeah, but while actual casting inside the AMF is a gray area, having a target inside one isn't, even if that target is yourself.

Any spell with a target inside the AMF fails. Says so pretty clearly.