CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
Stalker0 said:
Yep, that's how I read it, too. Since the spell is instantaneous, it can't have a lasting magical effect, so it has to be Ex or natural.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
holy water + antimagic field =?
- Thread starter Scion
- Start date
Yep, that's how I read it, too. Since the spell is instantaneous, it can't have a lasting magical effect, so it has to be Ex or natural.
Spatzimaus
First Post
Scion said:
The Sun is pulled across the sky by a guy in a chariot. Clearly, sunlight is magical as a result.
By the rules as written, holy water should be nonmagical. You can't dispel it, you can't Detect it, and it doesn't have a duration. It's not in the Magic Items section of the DMG, it's in the "Equipment" section of the PHB, alongside Alchemist's Fire and Sunrods (counterexample: Everburning Torches are there, too, and they're clearly suppressed in an AMF). Personally, I wish they HAD made it explicitly magical, though. I'd also love to see "Lawful Water" and "Chaotic Water", but I'll take what I can get.
Spatzimaus said:
A plane is moved across the sky useing engines. Clearly the plane is magical.
A kite is pushed through the air by unseen forces! Clearly magical.
I can eat something tasty, and later output something not tasty. Clearly I am magical!
mmm.. mixing and matching equipment charts.. everburning torch sets the precedent of magical items in the mundane chart.. or is it that holy water sets the precedent? tough call.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
There are other nonmagical things that can hurt undead, like fire. Holy water is not a bizarre exception.
James McMurray
First Post
Incorporeal undead cannot exist in an anti-magic field.Artoomis said:
Scion: how do your "adamantium = antimagic" rules deal with this? Does adamantium armor add its bonus against incorporeal touch attacks?
James McMurray said:
adamantium surpresses magic, enough generates something like a negation field. Where does it state that incorporeal undead cannot exist in an antimagic field? I only have the srd right now and dont have enough time to look through it
If it is true, and if I leave it that way, then at most it would probably allow the armor bonus to work vs the undeads touch attack. Quick and easy, I like it
Edit: Found it. I will stick by the 'armor bonus still counting' and run with that
Last edited:
UltimaGabe
First Post
First off, Adamantine does not repel magic at al, it's simply an extremely hard metal. In earlier editions it gave the wearer/user an enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls and AC that even existed in an antimagic field, but that's because it's so extraordinarily hard and sharp- not because it supresses magic. Now, they simply give the wearer/wielder damage reduction or bypass hardness.
Second, just because something affects incorporeal undead doesn't mean it has to be magical. There's an alchemical substance in the Arms and Equipment guide that can be applied to a weapon, that allows that weapon to affect undead for a certain number of rounds without the normal 50% miss chance. Again, it's alchemical, not magical.
Third, there ARE Lawful and Chaotic waters- they're in the Arms and Equipment guide. They don't really say what effects they have on undead, but I'd assume Lawful waters would do the same thing, considering the majority of undead are naturally Chaotic Evil.
Second, just because something affects incorporeal undead doesn't mean it has to be magical. There's an alchemical substance in the Arms and Equipment guide that can be applied to a weapon, that allows that weapon to affect undead for a certain number of rounds without the normal 50% miss chance. Again, it's alchemical, not magical.
Third, there ARE Lawful and Chaotic waters- they're in the Arms and Equipment guide. They don't really say what effects they have on undead, but I'd assume Lawful waters would do the same thing, considering the majority of undead are naturally Chaotic Evil.
James McMurray
First Post
UltimaGabe: The antimagic nature of adamantine is a house rule of Scion's.
Alchemy is a skill, but its askill that requires spellcasting ability to use. It could very well be considered magical. Either way though, the rules are vague, o why bother arguing about it? What works for the game you are in is the answer you should go with.
Alchemy is a skill, but its askill that requires spellcasting ability to use. It could very well be considered magical. Either way though, the rules are vague, o why bother arguing about it? What works for the game you are in is the answer you should go with.
UltimaGabe
First Post
James McMurray said:UltimaGabe: The antimagic nature of adamantine is a house rule of Scion's.
Alchemy is a skill, but its askill that requires spellcasting ability to use. It could very well be considered magical. Either way though, the rules are vague, o why bother arguing about it? What works for the game you are in is the answer you should go with.
1. Ah. Just kidding.
2. Although alchemy requires spellcasting ability to learn, it is not a spell, nor does it perfectly duplicate the effects of spells. Alchemy is never supressed in an antimagic field (Tindertwigs will always light, Sunrods will always glow, and tanglefoot bags will never stop entangling), and is never considered magical. It's a strange and unusual field of study, but not magical.
