Globe of Invulnerability

[andargor]

No, I'm pretty sure that the AMF blocks line of effect for magic.

It does not indicate so in the spell description.

AMF says it prevents spells "used within, brought into, or cast into the area." If you stand inside it and cast a spell, IMO that counts as magic "used within" the field.

First, I disagree with the magic "used within" applies to casting. It applies to the spell being cast (specificly it's effect), not to the casting action.

Secondly the full phrase is "An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it." It does not prevent magic effects, it suppresses them (for instantaneous spells, yes, it is effectively "preventing"), and it does not affect casting.

Andargor

 

[Caliban]

It does not indicate so in the spell description.



First, I disagree with the magic "used within" applies to casting. It applies to the spell being cast (specificly it's effect), not to the casting action. Secondly the full phrase is "An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it." It does not prevent, it suppresses (for instantaneous spells, yes, it is effectively "preventing").

Andargor

How can spellcasting not be "magic used within"?

You cast the spell while inside AMF field it's instantly suppressed before it can go anywhere.

And yes, the AMF field would block line of effect, just like any other barrier that magic cannot pass through.

 

[andargor]

How can spellcasting not be "magic used within"?

You cast the spell while inside AMF field it's instantly suppressed before it can go anywhere.

And yes, the AMF field would block line of effect, just like any other barrier that magic cannot pass through.

Well, I don't want to debate this ad nauseam, as it is obvious that the key point here is how you view casting.

Here's my take, for what it's worth. The SRD says that the following steps determine the casting process:

- You choose a spell. Must be able to speak/gesture/manipulate material components
- You concentrate
- Counterspells are processed (if necessary)
- Caster level checks are made (if necessary)
- Spell Failure is checked
- Spell Result (effect) is determined (target/area selected, saves rolled)

None of these factors are affected by an AMF.

The other requirement is the line of effect, and that's the sticky point. Is the line of effect itself considered "magic", is it "suppressed"? My opinion is no, unless you are talking about Rays.

Andargor

 

[Caliban]

Well, I don't want to debate this ad nauseam, as it is obvious that the key point here is how you view casting.

Here's my take, for what it's worth. The SRD says that the following steps determine the casting process:

- You choose a spell. Must be able to speak/gesture/manipulate material components
- You concentrate
- Counterspells are processed (if necessary)
- Caster level checks are made (if necessary)
- Spell Failure is checked
- Spell Result (effect) is determined (target/area selected, saves rolled)

None of these factors are affected by an AMF.

The other requirement is the line of effect, and that's the sticky point. Is the line of effect itself considered "magic", is it "suppressed"? My opinion is no, unless you are talking about Rays.

Andargor

Is the spell magic? Yes it is.
Are you using magic when you cast a spell? Yes you are.

Therefore you are using magic when casting as spell within an AMF.

Also, the magic has to travel from point A to B, where Point A is you and Point B is your target. Otherwise "Line of Effect" rules wouldn't exist. So the magic has to travel from inside the AMF field to outside the AMF field, and before it can do so it's suppressed.

 

[andargor]

Is the spell magic? Yes it is.
Are you using magic when you cast a spell? Yes you are.

Therefore you are using magic when casting as spell within an AMF.

Also, the magic has to travel from point A to B, where Point A is you and Point B is your target. Otherwise "Line of Effect" rules wouldn't exist. So the magic has to travel from inside the AMF field to outside the AMF field, and before it can do so it's suppressed.

Again, the phrase says "An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within" it. Casting is not a spell, nor is it a magical effect.

The result of casting, however, is magic: a spell effect. AMF suppresses spell effects, it does not suppress nor prevent casting. The only debatable point here is if a line of effect is considered a "spell or magical effect", or if only the "Target/Area/Effect" entry in a spell counts.

I'm sorry, but I really think we have different views here...

Andargor

 

[Caliban]

Again, the phrase says "An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within" it. Casting is not a spell, nor is it a magical effect.

The result of casting, however, is magic: a spell effect. AMF suppresses spell effects, it does not suppress nor prevent casting. The only debatable point here is if a line of effect is considered a "spell or magical effect", or if only the "Target/Area/Effect" entry in a spell counts.

I'm sorry, but I really think we have different views here...

Andargor

Since your arguement seems to be that a spell is not a magical effect, I feel pretty confident that you are incorrect.

Better luck next time.

 

[KarinsDad]

So the magic has to travel from inside the AMF field to outside the AMF field, and before it can do so it's suppressed.

Agreed.

In fact, I would go so far as to state that it is not actually cast in the first place. The ability to "ignite the spell" is suppressed to the point that it not only doesn't happen, but the spell is not lost either. No magic whatsoever.

If the designers had intended for spells to be cast outside of an AMF, they would have explicitly indicated so within the text of the spell, just like they do for the various Globes of Invulnerability.

This is the first time that I have ever heard anyone presuming that magic could be cast out of this spell and I doubt the designers have ever heard of such a concept. If they would have, I think they would have clarified their intent. Since they did not, it seems reasonable that the concept never occurred to them, just like it never occurred to me (or most other people I would think).

 

[der_kluge]

These are my house rules on globe/minor globe. Obviously, you may feel free to disagree with me on these, but these are my current house rules on them:


• Globe of invulnerability, and minor globe of invulnerability - these spells travel with the caster, but he may move from the globe if he desires, losing the benefits of the spell if he moves outside the globe’s radius.
• Personal spells are suppressed, but not dispelled, inside a globe of invulnerability for the duration of the globe. Items of +2 enchantment or less are suppressed in a minor globe of invulnerability, and items of +3 enchantment or less are suppressed in a globe of invulnerability.

 

[andargor]

Since your arguement seems to be that a spell is not a magical effect, I feel pretty confident that you are incorrect.

Well, that's not at all what I said, and you can feel however you like. I'm just stating my opinion according to my understanding of the rules, and it is that casting is not a magical effect. Spells are.

When you cast Detect Magic on a wizard casting a spell with a casting time of, say, 10 minutes, do you detect an aura? (assuming no magic items or other spell effects on the wizard at the time).

If your answer is yes, we disagree, but your logic holds.

Better luck next time.

This part was unnecessary.

Andargor

 

[andargor]

Agreed.
If the designers had intended for spells to be cast outside of an AMF, they would have explicitly indicated so within the text of the spell, just like they do for the various Globes of Invulnerability.

This is the first time that I have ever heard anyone presuming that magic could be cast out of this spell and I doubt the designers have ever heard of such a concept. If they would have, I think they would have clarified their intent. Since they did not, it seems reasonable that the concept never occurred to them, just like it never occurred to me (or most other people I would think).

I'm sorry for being blunt, but the designers' intentions are irrelevant. I'm not debating whether it should be that way or not, but what is written.

And the omission of a specific clause to allow casting outside of an AMF does not make the case for disallowing it. Others will argue that since it is not disallowed explicitly, then it is allowed, and we go nowhere fast.

Andargor