Antimagic Ray Wizard Spell Clarification

[delericho]

It's not a rules source, but for what it's worth, Wizards had Skip Williams cover this in his "Rules of the Game" column: "When a spell is aimed into an area of antimagic from somewhere outside the area, the antimagic blocks line of effect for the spell and the spell most likely fails." (emphasis mine)

 

[Greenfield]

Cover your battlemat with a film that doesn't allow the ink to stick - it's suppressed in that area, but not dispelled. Now can you draw the lines?

Why not just outlaw pens? Or battlemats? Or AMF effects?

The point is that the AMF doesn't "block" anything. The rules specifically state that Area of Effect spells function normally outside of the AMF.

You want to say, "Except when they don't"? Okay, i you're the Dm you can make up any rules you like. But that caveat isn't in the rules anywhere. It's your own house rule.

And that's the point: because the effect is suppressed, you don't have line of effect.

If it said the effect was "blocked" you'd be right.

Let's look directly at the rules:

ANTIMAGIC
An antimagic field spell or effect cancels magic altogether. An antimagic effect has the following powers and characteristics.
• No supernatural ability, spell-like ability, or spell works in an area of antimagic (but extraordinary abilities still work).
• Antimagic does not dispel magic; it suppresses it. Once a magical effect is no longer affected by the antimagic (the antimagic fades, the center of the effect moves away, and so on), the magic returns. Spells that still have part of their duration left begin functioning again, magic items are once again useful, and so forth.
• Spell areas that include both an antimagic area and a normal area, but are not centered in the antimagic area, still function in the normal area. If the spell’s center is in the antimagic area, then the spell is suppressed.
• Golems and other constructs, elementals, outsiders, and corporeal undead, still function in an antimagic area (though the antimagic area suppresses their spellcasting and their supernatural and spell-like abilities normally). If such creatures are summoned or conjured, however, see below.
• Summoned or conjured creatures of any type, as well as incorporeal undead, wink out if they enter the area of an antimagic effect. They reappear in the same spot once the field goes away.
• Magic items with continuous effects do not function in the area of an antimagic effect, but their effects are not canceled (so the contents of a bag of holding are unavailable, but neither spill out nor disappear forever).
• Two antimagic areas in the same place do not cancel each other out, nor do they stack.
• Wall of force, prismatic wall, and prismatic sphere are not affected by antimagic. Break enchantment, dispel magic, and greater dispel magic spells do not dispel antimagic. Mage’s disjunction has a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined.

Note the portion I bolded. That's from the section describing AntiMagic in general.

The AMF spell description also says that spell effects are suppressed, not dispelled.

While it may appeal to your personal sensibilities about how things "should" work, AMF blocking Line of Effect isn't in the rules. In this case, the rules say the exact opposite.

As for things that are reproducible being subject to science: Variable damage and Saving throws that can flat out negate a spell effect kind of shoot the "reproducible" part of that argument down in flames.

Regardless, the point was that while physics might accidentally agree with how some spell effect works out, it's a coincidence. Actual physics is far too complicated to apply to magic systems, and it's a bad idea to try.

(I see an argument coming, so I'm taking the Hamster Cannon out of mothballs...)



Heh. You beat me to it.[/QUOTE]

 

[delericho]

While it may appeal to your personal sensibilities about how things "should" work, AMF blocking Line of Effect isn't in the rules. In this case, the rules say the exact opposite.

No, they don't. The spell description for antimagic field says nothing whatsoever about line of effect. That means that those rules apply unchanged.

To affect a target with a spell like lightning bolt or magic missile, you need line of effect to that target. And, as the SRD says: "A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect."

If the lightning bolt passes through the antimagic field then for that part of its length it is suppressed - it does not take effect. Therefore the path indicating what it can affect is clearly not 'unbroken'. Therefore you don't have line of effect, and therefore you cannot affect a target on the other side of an antimagic field.

In this instance, the line of effect being blocked is a consequence of the magic being suppressed in the area of the antimagic field.

 

[Greenfield]

You are aware that "Line Effect" is an Area of Effect, aren't you? And that is addressed.

As for Skip Williams' comment: I agree, spells fired into an Anti Magic Field most likely fail. Those fired through on the other hand might be another matter.

I can target a Polymorph at someone on the other side of an AMF. The point of origin and affected creature are both completely outside of the field, and there's no bead, ray, spray or other magical carrier that has to penetrate the AMF, so they're affected normally.

Magic Missile and ray-type spells, which aren't AoE, could reasonably be blocked. The Missile disappears as it enters and that's the end of it.

Same thing for a Fireball fired through: The bead that travels from the caster's hand to the target area vanishes as it enters and is gone. But the same spell, detonated outside the field, would cover its entire AoE normally except for the areas that overlap with the Anti Magic effect.

Now I've been quoting the "Rules as Written" with regards to how AoE interact with Anti Magic areas.

You seem to be arguing that the RAW is wrong, superseded by your interpretation of Line of Effect, a rule that is far from clear when Anti Magic is concerned. (In fact Anti Magic isn't mentioned in the Line of Effect rules, nor is Line of Effect mentioned in the Anti Magic rules. Area of Effect is.)

I would also observe, from your last post, that "unblocked" is not the same as "unbroken".

You are free to house rule any way you like in your games, as is any DM. Unless you can find an actual rule that says I'm wrong, however, you aren't going to convince me.

 

[delericho]

You are aware that "Line Effect" is an Area of Effect, aren't you?

Line of effect (PHB 176, or the previously linked segment of the SRD). Which is distinct from "Area: 120 ft line" (and similar - lightning bolt, p.248).

To quote further from the PHB: "You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect (such as conjuring a monster). You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast, such as the centre of a fireball. A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell only affects an area, creatures, or objects to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst's centre point, a cone-shaped burst's starting point, a cylinder's circle, or an emanation's point of origin)."

As for Skip Williams' comment: I agree, spells fired into an Anti Magic Field most likely fail. Those fired through on the other hand might be another matter.

Yes, but the key statement from that column was that antimagic field blocks line of effect.

I can target a Polymorph at someone on the other side of an AMF.

Actually, no you can't - you don't have line of effect. See above.

Now I've been quoting the "Rules as Written" with regards to how AoE interact with Anti Magic areas.

You've quoted some of the relevant RAW, but missed out the other key bit. Which I have now cited twice and quoted extensively.

You are free to house rule any way you like in your games, as is any DM. Unless you can find an actual rule that says I'm wrong, however, you aren't going to convince me.

Yes, you are also free to house rule any way you like in your games, as is any DM. I've quoted the relevant rules passages above, provided the relevant links and page references, and had it backed by one of Wizards' own rules gurus.

If that's not enough for you, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

 

[delericho]

Unless you can find an actual rule that says I'm wrong, however, you aren't going to convince me.

Ah. I've found the relevant rules reference: "Rules Compendium", p.11:

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

So, yeah. You were right, and I was wrong. My apologies, and also thanks.

 

[Greenfield]

Um, I'm in uncharted territory here.

Has anyone ever "won" an argument on the Internet before? I'm not sure what to do...


Seriously though, I was unaware of that clarification, so thak you.

Also, it appears that I may have been wrong on a few points.

According to that, Ray spells, Magic Missile and Fireball could all be fired *through and Anti Magic area. I pretty much presumed that they couldn't, since the transit to target isn't an Area of Effect.