D&D 5E Is It me, or has TFYP Missed Tomb Of Horror's Best Trap?

[seebs]

Well first, this is how another Dm explain it to me after we'd decided not to pick up the staff and had finished the adventure. I thought then that it was literally the best trap I'd ever seen. I'm sad to hear it apparently isn't the case. But as I enjoyed it let me make a case for it anyway.

1) Antimagic doesn't destroy magic, a continuous effect comes 'back on' after it's been inside a field.
2) So do magic items, like a +1 sword or everburning torch will come 'back on' too.
3) In that case an item is basically something is powered down and up when it goes inside field. So a staff of magi would have no power when inside the field. Broken inside, it doesn't detonate.
4) Taking it back out 'turns the thing back on' an here is really a never discussed much in my head the staff suddenly came 'back on' and went 'I'm broken' and react accordingly. Again I am not talking about removing the anti-magic field, I'm talking about removing it from the field.

I don't think that works, though. Antimagic suppresses continuous effects. It can't "suppress" an explosion; it's just that either the explosion happens or it doesn't.

That's some thoughts. I suppose wands that have been fired inside a field don't then go off when you leave.

Right.

I can see this part of the argument now, I have never questioned it up until now, so I have been believing this is the coolest trap in D&D for like over a decade. Which kind of makes tomb of horrors much more dumb in my estimation. Why even bother defining it as a staff of the magi? Just to add weight to the illusion? Obligatory loot grab with some work?

I may have to work a way to out it back in that way, change the room slightly.

That is a fascinating idea, and it's actually a sort of interesting trap idea.

But my thought is: When broken, the staff can no longer hold magic. The magic then comes out of it. Normally that's an explosion. In an antimagic field, it just gets eaten up by the antimagic field with no effect.

 

[Benji]

I tend to agree now I have thought about it. As stated in the 'defence' I mustered, I was only really doing that to understand what my Dm at the time might have been thinking. I know my party got the same idea though so maybe we were all treating anti-magic fields differently back then. But that would be weird too as none of us were newbies back then so it'd have to have been all of our previous groups perceptions of how those worked were skewed. I have this crystal clear moment in my head when our spellcaster figured what we 'had avoided' and went kind of green.

 

[Benji]

.....I do think we gamers should invest in some new legends, because relying on the existing ones can make us stagnant.

I think the problem is, with new legends, is there are more of us able to talk now. Everyone agreeing what a good dungeon was easier back when the communities voice was minor and channelled through very specific events. If I was listing my legendary dungeons, how like would you be to agree with them? Have you even heard of them with the variety that are available? Tomb killed more PC's but to me 'Hall Of The rainbow mage' is the one that'll stick with me. Or 'The Banewarrens'. So it is a harder question than years ago.

 

[Reynard]

That is a fascinating idea, and it's actually a sort of interesting trap idea.

But my thought is: When broken, the staff can no longer hold magic. The magic then comes out of it. Normally that's an explosion. In an antimagic field, it just gets eaten up by the antimagic field with no effect.

I disagree. I think Benji's explanation makes perfect sense.

An Antimagic field suppresses a magic item. I.E. when in the field, it is not a magic item. When removed from the field, the item returns to its magical state, unchanged. The staff while in the field is not magical -- it is a very expensive stick. When broken, it does not do anything because it is not magical. Therefore, the field does not stop or supress the explosion because it did not happen yet. When the staff leaves the field, it becomes magical again. The condition of the staff is that if broken with charges remaining, it explodes. So, it is both magical and broken at the same instant that it is removed from the field. I might even give PCs disadvantage on the save because it happens with no warning whatsoever.

 

[seebs]

I disagree. I think Benji's explanation makes perfect sense.

An Antimagic field suppresses a magic item. I.E. when in the field, it is not a magic item. When removed from the field, the item returns to its magical state, unchanged. The staff while in the field is not magical -- it is a very expensive stick. When broken, it does not do anything because it is not magical. Therefore, the field does not stop or supress the explosion because it did not happen yet. When the staff leaves the field, it becomes magical again. The condition of the staff is that if broken with charges remaining, it explodes. So, it is both magical and broken at the same instant that it is removed from the field. I might even give PCs disadvantage on the save because it happens with no warning whatsoever.

Distinguish "broken" as a verb and "broken" as a completed state. The staff explodes when you break it. If it has already been broken, it's not going to explode in the future. Whatever happens already happened. It may be that's nothing.

 

[seebs]

I tend to agree now I have thought about it. As stated in the 'defence' I mustered, I was only really doing that to understand what my Dm at the time might have been thinking. I know my party got the same idea though so maybe we were all treating anti-magic fields differently back then. But that would be weird too as none of us were newbies back then so it'd have to have been all of our previous groups perceptions of how those worked were skewed. I have this crystal clear moment in my head when our spellcaster figured what we 'had avoided' and went kind of green.

This is sorta fascinating. The closest thing I can think of is I've had a GM rule that contingencies would fire on-death, or within the next minute-per-caster-level or so if suppressed by antimagic. But that may have been part of their ruling on contingency specifically.

 

[Reynard]

Distinguish "broken" as a verb and "broken" as a completed state. The staff explodes when you break it. If it has already been broken, it's not going to explode in the future. Whatever happens already happened. It may be that's nothing.

The best part of D&D is that we are both right. ;-)

 

[Koren n'Rhys]

I'm with the group that agrees the explosion just doesn't happen. I'd look at it as the Antimagic Field being the perfect tool/environment specifically to allow you to break a Staff of the Magi safely. Cast spell, break staff inside, which neutralizes the blast since the staff now isn't considered magical at the time it's broken. Dropping the spell, or removing the broken pieces from the area won't matter, since now they are just broken wood and no longer the magic staff.

 

[schnee]

I disagree. I think Benji's explanation makes perfect sense.

An Antimagic field suppresses a magic item. I.E. when in the field, it is not a magic item. When removed from the field, the item returns to its magical state, unchanged. The staff while in the field is not magical -- it is a very expensive stick. When broken, it does not do anything because it is not magical. Therefore, the field does not stop or supress the explosion because it did not happen yet. When the staff leaves the field, it becomes magical again. The condition of the staff is that if broken with charges remaining, it explodes. So, it is both magical and broken at the same instant that it is removed from the field. I might even give PCs disadvantage on the save because it happens with no warning whatsoever.

What you're describing is more of a temporal stasis than a suppression effect.

The field doesn't stop time, it suppresses magic.

If your definition were true, then any character with a 2-round 'duration' spell can go into an anti-magic spell, hang out for hours, and still have one round left. If the anti-magic shell had those sorts of effects that would have in-game ramifications, the spell would contain that information, because that would be incredibly germane to the tactics you'd use to fight it.

Since the spell doesn't go into that detail, and we have another spell that does literally create a stasis effect like that (Time Stop), I don't think there's much to interpret it that way.

Edit: of course, leaving the window open too long means I posted this after the whole issue has been thoroughly discussed. *shrugs*

 

[FitzTheRuke]

What you're describing is more of a temporal stasis than a suppression effect.

The field doesn't stop time, it suppresses magic.

If your definition were true, then any character with a 2-round 'duration' spell can go into an anti-magic spell, hang out for hours, and still have one round left. If the anti-magic shell had those sorts of effects that would have in-game ramifications, the spell would contain that information, because that would be incredibly germane to the tactics you'd use to fight it.

Since the spell doesn't go into that detail, and we have another spell that does literally create a stasis effect like that (Time Stop), I don't think there's much to interpret it that way.

Edit: of course, leaving the window open too long means I posted this after the whole issue has been thoroughly discussed. *shrugs*

You still brought valuable insight to it.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app