Argh, more Sage trouble

[dcollins]

Let me say up front:
(1) I think it's a wonderful and impressive gesture that Skip "the Sage" Williams answers D&D rules questions personally, and that the D&D FAQ is being fairly routinely updated.
(2) It doesn't seem that under this procedure Skip has enough time to properly consider the rules judgements that he's making -- the number of contradictory calls (with himself or printed core rules) seems to be increasing. Furthermore, the FAQ seems to be adding huge new swatches of text with each revision, frequently adding new rules in the process.

Now, the point of this thread:

In the newly published Official D&D FAQ (v. 5/10/02), there are multiple questions about the effects of antimagic field (on p. 41). In the first question, it is stated that an antimagic field does NOT prevent the casting of spells from within the field (only stopping the functioning of spells within the area). In the very next question, it is stated that "the antimagic field blocks line of effect", which would have the obvious corollary that spells cannot be cast from a point inside the area to a point outside the area. And just to top it off, another answer also added in the same version, on p. 48, in fact confirms that "you need line of effect between you and the point of origin for your spell... or to your spell’s target..."

That one's pretty hard to swallow.

EDIT: The only way I can possible think to synchronize these rulings is to conclude that the only useful magic to be cast inside an antimagic field is personal- or touch-ranged spells, which then lie dormant until the antimagic field ends.

 

[AGGEMAM]

What's the problem, that's how AMF always worked.

 

[dcollins]

The problem is that both being able to cast a spell from within an antimagic field, and not being able to cast a spell from within an antimagic field, is a logical contradiction.

 

[AGGEMAM]

I think your edit says it all. ;-)

 

[Caliban]

The problem is that both being able to cast a spell from within an antimagic field, and not being able to cast a spell from within an antimagic field, is a logical contradiction.

Well, he didn't say you can cast from within an antimagic shell. He said that anti-magic shell doesn't stop you from casting spells.

It still blocks line of effect, and the spells are still instantly suppressed.

So yes, you are basically limited to personal or touch spells. Everything else is blocked.

 

[apsuman]

Well, he didn't say you can cast from within an antimagic shell. He said that anti-magic shell doesn't stop you from casting spells.

It still blocks line of effect, and the spells are still instantly suppressed.

So yes, you are basically limited to personal or touch spells. Everything else is blocked.

But the spells are simply suppressed, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you could cast Bull's Str on your self and as soon as you step out from the AMF you would received the benefit.

g!

 

[AGGEMAM]

But the spells are simply suppressed, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you could cast Bull's Str on your self and as soon as you step out from the AMF you would received the benefit.

g!

Correct, remember though, that the time spent in the AMF counts towards the total duration.

 

[Ikonoklast]

What would happen if you cast a heal in an antimagic field. Would the hp come back after you stepped out of the field or would be you be healed as the spell is cast b/c instantaneous spells are not effected in a antimagic field.

 

[AGGEMAM]

What would happen if you cast a heal in an antimagic field. Would the hp come back after you stepped out of the field or would be you be healed as the spell is cast b/c instantaneous spells are not effected in a antimagic field.

Instantenous spells are effectively dispelled in an AMF.

 

[dcollins]

Well, he didn't say you can cast from within an antimagic shell.

Unfortunately, he did say that! (FAQ p. 41)

Does antimagic field actually prevent the casting of a spell from within the field?...

No...