Casting spells out of an antimagic field?

[Merlion]

I've never thought of Antimagic Field as a defensive spell for wizards, but rather as an offensive spell against wizards. You cast it on your fighter buddy, and send him after the enemy mage. If he gets to the mage before the mage can TP away, that mage is in serious trouble. And there's very little the enemy mage can do to stop the fighter at that point. The Antimagic Field protects the fighter against anything the mage can throw at him. So that mage had better start thinking fast.

That'd be fine and dandy, if you could cast it on other people. You cant.

I didn't say it was logical, I'm just saying that it's possible.

Well, I dont generally use spells that dont make any sense...it tends to disrupt suspension of disbelief.

Just, out of curiosity, how much have you used the antimagic field spell in actual gameplay?

None of my mages have even taken it, since as I said, I dont see the point of a great defense that simultaneously neuters you.

I suppose it might be useful for bypassing hazardous magical areas, since it would exclude the hazards...but in combat...I dont see the point.

 

[Merlion]

Feeblemind allows both Spell Resistance and a save (albeit at a penalty for arcane casters.) Cast an Antimagic Field on the fighter and send him after the mage, and neither SR nor saving throws apply.

Again, you cant cast it on a fighter.

Becauyse of

Range: 10 feet
Area: 10 ft radius emanation, centered on you

 

[UltimaGabe]

None of my mages have even taken it, since as I said, I dont see the point of a great defense that simultaneously neuters you.

I suppose it might be useful for bypassing hazardous magical areas, since it would exclude the hazards...but in combat...I dont see the point.

I've used it on several occasions, and from my experience, it's a great spell. Of course it's not a spell you'll use every session- in fact, it has very limited uses. However, it still has some great uses. You aren't gonna be throwing it up when fighting something big and tough, because it'll hinder you and not hinder them at all. You're going to be using it when you're up against a really powerful spellcaster, because anybody within the radius is completely immune to any magic that may be coming their way. True, you can't cast it on a Fighter, but what's stopping you from casting it on yourself and then moving with the Fighter? Grappling enemy mages just gets easier and easier when they're in an antimagic field with your Fighter. Not only that, but while you're both in the radius, like I said, both of you are immune to everything the mage can throw at you.

Like I said, it's not something you'll use all the time, but when you know there are lots of magical hazards, nothing gets past them better than Antimagic field. But just because it isn't going to be used all the time doesn't mean it's not worthy of its level. Allowing spells to be cast out of it would make it TOO powerful, in my opinion- although also in my opinion, it's better off as a 6th-level spell (via the Magic Domain). I once played a Cleric with said Domain and used the spell on three or four occasions throughout the campaign- two in battle, and two out. It's got its place.

 

[Merlion]

Although I'd say its not in the hands of a cleric. clerics are far to much better at defending against magic than wizards as is.


As far as actually using it...other than to bypass hazards, its just not a spell that appeals to me. I dont like being basically unable to do anything meaningful.

 

[Twowolves]

Four words: Ring of Spell Storing.

Or if you like, five words: "Scribe Scroll" and "Use Magic Device".



TwoWolves

 

[UltimaGabe]

Although I'd say its not in the hands of a cleric. clerics are far to much better at defending against magic than wizards as is.

Then that, alone, should tell you that it's a good spell for a Wizard to have- if it's good for a Cleric (who already has all sorts of defenses against magic), then why wouldn't it be great for a Wizard (who, apparently, isn't as good at defending against magic)?

As far as actually using it...other than to bypass hazards, its just not a spell that appeals to me. I dont like being basically unable to do anything meaningful.

I agree with you that it can suck, and I see nothing wrong with this line of thinking- but I used to feel like that (when I started playing D&D, until about a year ago, I hated any situation where I didn't help out the overall goal, whether it be a battle, a negotiation, or just a roleplay situation), and I considered it a rut that I had to get out of. In D&D, it's impossible to always be doing something meaningful- Fighters can't kill everything through arms alone, and spellcasters run out of spells. Sometimes, you just HAVE to sit back and do nothing. However, in the same light, I don't view activating an Antimagic field as "not doing anything meaningful"- activating an Antimagic Field is the absolute best protection you (and anyone around you) can possibly have against magic. Unless you haven't been in too many situations where you've been the target of magic, this kind of protection should be priceless to you. Nothing magical can penetrate an Antimagic field- no spell, no spell-like ability, no magic item, and even no supernatural ability (unless it comes directly from a deity or an artifact). I understand what you're feeling, I just think it's horribly misplaced. Absolute protection at the expense of artillery hardly seems like a waste, in my opinion.

 

[Kandor]

I appreciate all the replies. I am afraid however I still don't have enough to take back to my game. The 'line of effect' argument was a good one, but when I went to read the definition of line of effect in the SRD, I couldn't see how it would apply.

"Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It’s like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it’s not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
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. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast"

The other problem I'm facing is nowhere in the spell description of antimagic field does it specifically says spells cannot cross the barrier heading outward. If a spell may be cast on yourself inside the barrier, suppressed momentarily but to become into effect when the antimagic field goes away, why couldn't the spell be cast inside and targeted outside the field?

 

[Kilroy]

It's powerful enough as is, against heavily magic targets. Crippling party spellcasters is a low price to pay when you also cripple more powerful enemies.

Also, nothing pisses off a lich like the half-orc doing that "Got yer nose!" thing.

 

[Kandor]

I understand how powerful it is. That is a good reason for ruling or house ruling that spells cannot be cast from the inside out. I firmly believe the intent of the game designers is to have spells not be castable from inside the antimagic shell. But the wording of the spell leaves an opening, and I am trying to keep house rules to a minimum in my campaign.

Can anyone see where, in the description of the spell or elsewhere, the rules would prohibit the casting of spells from inside the field to a target outside the field?

 

[hong]

I understand how powerful it is. That is a good reason for ruling or house ruling that spells cannot be cast from the inside out. I firmly believe the intent of the game designers is to have spells not be castable from inside the antimagic shell.

So run it that way.