Rules Compendium anti magic field example

[Plane Sailing]

I just read the PDF preview of the Antimagic page from the rules compendium, and I'm not particularly impressed.

They don't tackle any of the thorny questions (instantaneous conjurations, magic arrows fired from a magic bow into an antimagic field) and seem to add in new wrinkles - I've always had antimagic fields blocking line of effect, but they say now that it doesn't block line of effect.

I don't see how this actually helps to reduce confusion or make it work better or more consistently, and it makes me wonder why they bothered to write it

Regards,

 

[frankthedm]

They don't tackle any of the thorny questions (instantaneous conjurations, magic arrows fired from a magic bow into an antimagic field) and seem to add in new wrinkles - I've always had antimagic fields blocking line of effect, but they say now that it doesn't block line of effect.

Uhg. That is the sort of corner case I wanted tackled by the damn book. Grumble, Grumble.

 

[mvincent]

seem to add in new wrinkles - I've always had antimagic fields blocking line of effect, but they say now that it doesn't block line of effect.

Indeed. The Rules Compendium says:
"Spells don’t function in an antimagic area, but an antimagic area doesn’t block line of effect."

That implies that say, an archmage with master of shaping could freely cast spells outside of his AMF (while still nerfing anyone trying to get near him... especially powerful if the archmage is flying).

This also contradicts all the other AMF clarifications that we've received so far:
From the 3.0 FAQ:
"Note that the antimagic field blocks line of effect, so an area cannot extend through the antimagic field."

From the Rules of the Game:
"When a spell is aimed into an area of antimagic from somewhere outside the area, the antimagic blocks line of effect for the spell"
and
"An antimagic effect also blocks line of effect (see Chapter 10 in the Player's Handbook) for any magical ability, though a creature always has line of effect to itself. So a creature with a spell-like ability could use the ability on itself, even in an antimagic field. The magic still would be suppressed while the creature remains inside the antimagic effect, and the creature would gain no benefit from the ability until it left the area of antimagic."
and
"The rules don't tell you what to do when whatever blocks the spread's line of effect isn't a solid object (for example, an antimagic field). In this case, just the treat the antimagic field like a solid obstacle."
and
"some things that you can see through can block line of effect, such as a wall of force or an antimagic field. "

 

[QuaziquestGM]

Maybe they got confused or mixed up the wording when they were trying to say that an AMF doesn't block line of sight for targets of visually targeted spells on the other side of the AMF?

For example, the wizard can't lightening bolt you if you are on the other side of a AMF as the magical bold can't go through the field, but the druid can Call Lightening on you as the lightening doesn't have the cross the AMF.

 

[mvincent]

Maybe they got confused or mixed up the wording when they were trying to say that an AMF doesn't block line of sight

I considered that (and that is how I plan to read it), but I don't think that was the case. The line of effect issue has been discussed often, while LOS is fairly obvious and has never been an issue.

This simply seems like an ill-considered and poorly researched call rather than a typo. Odd that the author didn't even seem to consider the RotG or FAQ here, since the description for the Rules compendium says:
"In addition to presenting the rules of the game, the Rules Compendium incorporates official errata as well as behind-the-scenes designer and developer commentary explaining how the rules system has evolved and why certain rules work the way they do."

In either case, I'm unsure how reliable the rest of the book will be. That says something, considering I'm the one that normally defends the rule calls of similar supplements on this board.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In either case, I'm unsure how reliable the rest of the book will be.

It's official errata; it's 100% reliable. When it contradicts something, it's the something that's wrong.

-Hyp.

 

[MarkB]

It's official errata; it's 100% reliable. When it contradicts something, it's the something that's wrong.

What happens if it contradicts itself?

 

[mvincent]

It's official errata; it's 100% reliable.

It's considered errata? AFAIK, it's just a supplement (and supplement contain mistakes all the time). It's only when a supplement actually says it's updating a rule that I consider it to have primacy over a previous, contradictory rule.

Now, the description of the Rules Compendium does say "the Rules Compendium incorporates official errata", but that is different from actually being errata itself.

 

[Deset Gled]

It's official errata; it's 100% reliable. When it contradicts something, it's the something that's wrong.

-Hyp.

Y'know, I can't help but think back to when Chris Perkins said "When we release errata, it will always be free." I also can't help but pimp my thread complaining about errata here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=208562

I also read over the Grappling preview. It also offers less info than the FAQ or RotG articles. This makes the whole book look rather disappointing.

 

[mvincent]

I also read over the Grappling preview. It also offers less info than the FAQ or RotG articles. This makes the whole book look rather disappointing.

Agreed. The grappling section appears to merely be a re-print of the SRD. It even still contains the (unclarified):
"Pin Your Opponent: You can hold your opponent stationary
for 1 round"
and
"When an opponent has pinned you, you are held stationary
(but not helpless) for 1 round"
and
"while pinning... you can attempt to move the grapple"