Orb of Force vs Antimagic Field

[KarinsDad]

I don't care to know how they're created; if I start down the path of correcting inconsistencies in D&D and making things realistic, forever will it dominate my destiny.

Yes, it will.

It already has without you knowing it, just by playing the game.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

 

[Cheiromancer]

How can you say "'objects or creatures' is non-exclusive" and "'objects or creatures' is exclusive" in the same paragraph and retain consistency?

-Hyp.

I don't see where I use "objects or creatures" in an exclusive sense. Maybe it is in another part of the quoted paragraph?

I think that the phrase "creates objects or creatures" is not exclusive; it doesn't rule out that some non-object non-creature could be created by a creation spell. And I also believe it has been established that Spell effects are sometimes neither objects nor creatures.

Waitress: "Would you like apple pie or chocolate cake for dessert?"
Customer: "Ummm. Is there any ice cream?"
Waitress: "Yes there is. Vanilla or chocolate?"
Customer: "Actually I'd like strawberry, if you have any."
Waitress: "I'll check.... sure, there's some left."

This is a pretty ordinary kind of dialogue. Ice cream is a non-pie non-cake dessert that is not ruled out by the waitress's opening question. Strawberry is a non-vanilla non-chocolate flavor that is not ruled out by the disjunction of vanilla and chocolate.

Similarly a creation spell might create a non-object non-creature spell effect.

 

[Thanee]

I don't see where I use "objects or creatures" in an exclusive sense. Maybe it is in another part of the quoted paragraph?

You imply that a non-creature non-object spell effect of instantaneous duration would not be non-magical and so on (the second paragraph in the book), while you say that the first paragraph includes non-creatures non-objects, you do not also have the second paragraph include those. That's what he means.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Cheiromancer]

I get it!

The spell creates "creatures or objects" and these "creatures or objects" last indefinitely. If I say that the former doesn't exclude spell effects, then neither should the latter. It's a fair point. I'd say, though, that creatures and objects by default last indefinitely. Not because of these rules, but by their nature as being mundane physical phenomena. Spell effects like figments or force effects wouldn't fall into this category.

But yeah, it's a fair point.

Anyway, I like thinking of the force orbs as being like unstable grenades- they blow up when they touch something.

 

[Daywalker]

Well, maybe.

Acid Arrow, for example, travels 400+ feet. There is no way you can throw anything that far (even in a fantasy world), so I would have no problem ruling that magic is propelling the Orb. Once it gets to the AMF, no more propulsion, it drops to the ground.

In fact, I have no problem ruling that although the Orb starts in your hand, it is not fully formed until it reaches the target. The Instantaneous of it is the same as the Instantaneous of Fireball (effectively). If you rule that Orbs get through, I suspect that you will have to rule that the bead of Fireball gets through as well (it just doesn't explode?).

But, it would be nice to find some rules support for a position that the magic is propelling the Orb.

The fireball does not get through because it is still a magical object- it is going to spontaneously explode into a blast radius of flame and not stay a bead indefinitely. That still has to be considered a "magical" bead and not just a plain old bead after it is created, so the AMF should still keep it out.

Aside from that... if you rule that the Acid Arrow stops at the AMF because the magic propelling it stops, so does the FB bead, since it is also sent to it's target via magic. ONLY via magic does it hone in on it's target at that, the ranged touch attack aspect at least makes Acid Arrow dependant on the caster's stats and the dice in some way -FB automatically goes where it is targeted via magical propulsion. That should make it definately stop when it comes into contact with the AMF as well if an Acid Arrow does.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The spell creates "creatures or objects" and these "creatures or objects" last indefinitely. If I say that the former doesn't exclude spell effects, then neither should the latter.

There we go!

-Hyp.

 

[Thanee]

I get it!

Heh. I saw your original post, too. Sorry for the non-non-confusion.

Bye
Thanee

 

[hbarsquared]

I apologize for not being a little clearer in my original post...

As far as I can tell, orb of force is now an Evocation, SR: yes spell. We will probably see it listed as such in the Spell Compendium.

In Dragon #328 (Feb 05), they published a series of Force spells with the Force Missile Mage article. Orb of force was one of them, and listed as Evocation. Considering that the latest source of a given spell is considered the de facto description, I believe this means that the school of orb of force has been changed.

I believe that it makes sense for the various other orb spells to be conjuration (creation) spells, conjuring actual acid, fire, etc.. But it doesn't make sense for "magical force" to not need to be held by magic.

 

[Thanee]

As far as I can tell, orb of force is now an Evocation, SR: yes spell. We will probably see it listed as such in the Spell Compendium.

That probably wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Hypersmurf]

We will probably see it listed as such in the Spell Compendium.

Though there are no guarantees

Was it the Fullblade that appeared in Sword and Fist as a weapon that could be used by Medium creatures in two hands with an EWP, was errata'd in Sword and Fist as a weapon that was too large to be wielded by Medium creatures, and then appeared in the Arms and Equipment Guide as a weapon that could be used by Medium creatures in two hands with an EWP (though not quite the same as the weapon that appeared in Sword and Fist originally)?

-Hyp.