Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 2733052" data-attributes="member: 2011">I didn't change it to include more things. WotC did.For example, Acid Arrow or Create Magic Tattoo, or the Orbs.Based on the definition of Conjuration Creation, these spells are mis-schooled. I cannot help it if WotC made a mistake and starting throwing Abjuration and Evocation effects into Conjuration::Creation magic.The point is, we all know that the intent of Antimagic Field is to stop all magic unless listed otherwise.If you take a literal reading of that sentence that this only affects objects or creatures, you close the loophole of Orbs getting through Antimagic Field.This does not address the loophole of spells which should not be Conjuration Creation getting into that school.For all I know, WotC might change the definition to:"Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature or effect in the place the spellcaster designates (subject to the limits noted above). If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence."So far, they haven't done so.Hence, although the spells do not belong in that school, they are there and we have to live with that.However, that does not mean they get all of the advantages of that school because the sentence you are using to give them that advantage does not apply to them because they are not creatures or objects.You can try to squeeze them in, but literally, it is not allowed.Just because WotC effectively added or effect into the first sentence does not mean that we can randomly add it to the sentence "If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature or effect is merely assembled through magic."Loophole closed. And, closed according to a very strict and literal reading of what is written, not what is implied (i.e. that all conjuration creation instantaneous effects last indefinitely).You'll note that the previous sentence for non-instantaneous duration states "holds the creation together", it does not state "object or creature". From a literal point of view, these are two different things. If the instantaneous sentence said that, we could not close the loophole.</blockquote>

Verification