Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dakuth" data-source="post: 5955565" data-attributes="member: 88006">Magic items being suppressed is specifically mentioned. Casting fireballs, or any other spell THROUGH an AMF is not.Correct. Skip Williams, however, does and it DOES NOT CONFLICT with what is written in the AMF entry.The bead is flavour. One of the important conditions for casting a spell is (this is 3.75, but I'm sure there is similar text in 3.5) "You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast."AMF blocks LoE, as per Skip Williams, so you can't cast a Fireball through it. The bead doesn't come into it.Again, I stress, the Core Rules - un-clarified - do not say one way or the other. In lieu of specifically saying it blocks LoE, I would err on the side of allowing it (and that is how I was originally playing.) It doesn't make a great deal of sense... but there you have it.Once a *designer of the game I am playing* states otherwise though, that is RAI at least, and in my mind RAW too.No that's wrong. It will go up to the AMF, then stop as it is blocked. AMF discusses how area effects that overlap with AMF don't reach into the AMF... what isn't made clear is that this is because it blocks LoE. More evidence that this was always the RAI. Fortunately for everyone, this is all cleared up when one of the designers clarifies the issue.Fortunately, by clarifying the LoE situation this is trivial - the spell fails due to lack of LoE to the initial target. This would be the same as having a wall of force between you and an enemy and trying to cast Chain Lighnting on them.You're correct, except you're initial premise is wrong making your argument invalid.I agree. Skip Williams specifically says you always have LoE to yourself, and as earlier argued in this thread, I think there is a compelling argument that RAW doesn't say you can't, and RAI is that you can cast. The trick here, though, is you can't cast buffs on other people because your LoE will be blockedNow that is an interesting argument. Moving to the edge of a AMF field and casting out of it. This is covered IMO. This is similar to being ethereal, and standing inside a wall and trying to cast out of it. I would rule you have no LoE (or LoS for that matter) until you emerge - that is your token is in a square outside the wall. YMMV, but:a|bWhere a and b are squares, and the | is a solid barrier. To me, it does not matter whether the | is a wall of force, the edge of a 10-foot wall (and (a) is ethereal,) or a is standing in a AMF... in all scenarios, (a) cannot cast until he gets to the other side of the barrier.Honestly, by just adopting Skip William's official ruling, it makes everything 100% straight forward. If you cast a spell intended to "go off" outside the AMF... it fails. No LoE.It seems quite obvious to me that it is an intentional exception. A balance concession, I'd wager, but having never had to use it in a game I hadn't worried about it. I figured a golem is a big part of the owner's power (since it requires so much investment that could have been spent on other magical items) and having a AMF shut it down would be too powerful.There IS something to say. An official ruling from one of the game's designers! Perhaps what you meant to say is "the core rulebooks do not say" ... but "nothing to say" is wrong. Furthermore, lightning bolt DOES NOT break the argument as LoE blocks it! You're argument is "lightning bolt shoots through the AMF, therefore it doesn't block LoE" ........ but you first have to demonstrate that lightning bolt would shoot through the AMF! For that you'd need an official ruling or example that shows as much!As explained above, no, they would not. They stop at the AMF's barrier.</blockquote>

Verification