Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hof" data-source="post: 3648404" data-attributes="member: 653">&lt;/lurking&gt;These kind of discussions are always interesting. Let me just chime in by explaining why I agree with the 'AM blocks line of effect for magic' ruling.As I see it, an anti-magic field does not actually block magic from entering, rather it keeps magic from existing within its area. This explains why a magic sword is not stopped by an AM field, yet is not magical while within it either. This also allows a +1 enhanced arrow, for example, to shoot through the field, because the magic upon it does not power its flight. And when it passes through it is magical once again.On to purely magical effects. A line of effect is needed for magic to reach its target. But in an AM field, the magic is suppressed e.g. does not exist for all intents and purposes. And something which does not exist cannot travel on to reappear on the other side - there is no non-magical effect which can get it out.Now I am unsure if a succesful targetting attempt is needed for a spell to resolve, otherwise a non instantaneous spell could resolve after the AM was removed from the line of effect.. which would be strange.Also, the Imbue Arrow ability of arcane archers actually has some value. Even if it is situational.As to the directing of an existing call lightning spell from within an animagic field: Regardless of when exactly the bolts are created, is not the directing of the spell a fine example of using the spell? Conversely, how can the druid call the lightning without using the spell?And using magic of any kind within an AM field is impossible. So I agree that calling lightning in such a situation is not possible.Hof.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hof, post: 3648404, member: 653"] </lurking> These kind of discussions are always interesting. Let me just chime in by explaining why I agree with the 'AM blocks line of effect for magic' ruling. As I see it, an anti-magic field does not actually block magic from entering, rather it keeps magic from [i]existing[/i] within its area. This explains why a magic sword is not stopped by an AM field, yet is not magical while within it either. This also allows a +1 enhanced arrow, for example, to shoot through the field, because the magic upon it does not power its flight. And when it passes through it is magical once again. On to purely magical effects. A line of effect is needed for magic to reach its target. But in an AM field, the magic is suppressed e.g. does not exist for all intents and purposes. And something which does not exist cannot travel on to reappear on the other side - there is no non-magical effect which can get it out. Now I am unsure if a succesful targetting attempt is needed for a spell to resolve, otherwise a non instantaneous spell could resolve after the AM was removed from the line of effect.. which would be strange. Also, the Imbue Arrow ability of arcane archers actually has some value. Even if it is situational. As to the directing of an existing call lightning spell from within an animagic field: Regardless of when exactly the bolts are created, is not the directing of the spell a fine example of [b]using[/b] the spell? Conversely, how can the druid call the lightning without using the spell? And using magic of any kind within an AM field is impossible. So I agree that calling lightning in such a situation is not possible. Hof. [/QUOTE]

Verification