what spells can penetrate an antimagic field?

[Musrum]

When I ask if it was a rhetorical question, it was simply because Hype appears to be the best rules loremaster I've seen (so I'd be surprised if he didn't already know this one). From the 3.5 FAQ:
"Damage reduction is extraordinary unless the weapon
property that bypasses the damage reduction is “magic” (as in
damage reduction #/magic) or one of the four alignment
qualities (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful), in which case it is
supernatural. Damage reduction that is bypassed by any other
weapon quality that a manufactured weapon could not have
without being magical also would be a supernatural special
quality."

Well... Nice to see the FAQ fix that little loophole. Turning #/magical into #/- by stepping into an AMF was pure cheese.

 

[RigaMortus2]

nm, I should read past the 1st and 2nd post before I make a post

 

[mvincent]

What was the question? Specifically in relation to bows, or to arrows as well?

It was just a generic question about attacks:
"If I attack from inside an antimagic field (Player's Handbook, 200) using a magic weapon, do I gain the benefit of the weapon if the target is outside the antimagic field? What about if I attack from outside against a target inside?
In neither case does the weapon's benefit apply. Both the attacker and the target must be outside the antimagic field for any magic of the weapon (or other effects) to apply. (If you made a ranged attack across an antimagic field - that is, from outside the area, across some part of the spell's area, against another target outside the area - the attack would resolve normally.)"

I don't agree with that - it suggests that a +1 Flaming arrow fired out of an AMF would not deal Fire damage, nor beat DR X/Magic, nor gain the enhancement bonus to attack or damage rolls, and none of those make sense to me.

Well, AMF is one of the hardest things to adjudicate, so at least we have something to work with. Addressing AMF could take several pages, but this is fairly simple and easy. Ignore it as you please, but if one can't decide on how to rule, at least it is there.

Do the 'or other effects' include True Strike?

I believe the FAQ still leaves that open and subject to interpretation (and preference), but as an Insight Bonus it seems to affect the user rather than the weapon.

Bracers of Archery?

As above, but a competence bonus seems even more mundane and affecting the user rather than the weapon.

Gloves of Dexterity?

If used outside an AMF it must certainly be applicable (and definitely mundane in regard to the weapon since it affects it indirectly)

 

[Infiniti2000]

Well... Nice to see the FAQ fix that little loophole. Turning #/magical into #/- by stepping into an AMF was pure cheese.

The errata fixed it as well (for real IMO due to the clarification of Su). I personally think the silver/cold iron should be Ex, btw.

Damage Reduction
Damage Reduction is either extraordinary (Ex) or supernatural (Su). Use the following guidelines if it is not specified.

• DR X/slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning should be (Ex)
• DR X/adamantine should be (Ex)
• DR X/-- should be (Ex)
• DR X/silver or cold iron should be (Su)
• DR X/magic should be (Su)
• DR X/chaotic, lawful, holy, or unholy should be (Su)

Note that Su is magical.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I believe the FAQ still leaves that open and subject to interpretation (and preference), but as an Insight Bonus it seems to affect the user rather than the weapon.

As above, but a competence bonus seems even more mundane and affecting the user rather than the weapon.

If used outside an AMF it must certainly be applicable (and definitely mundane in regard to the weapon since it affects it indirectly)

"Both the attacker and the target must be outside the antimagic field for any magic of the weapon (or other effects) to apply."

If my target is inside an AMF, according to the FAQ, any magic of my weapon or other effects does not apply. Aren't True Strike, the Bracers, and the Gloves magic of other effects?

-Hyp.

 

[Thanee]

Yeah. I guess, though, that most spells that don't allow SR are the kind who don't mind antimagic fields.

That's not true, however. Only a small sub-group of those spells work (instantaneous conjurations).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Nadaka]

Why bother with all that? I've already given the perfect spell.

Hmmph!
Daniel

eh. Most people don't think about falling object damage. Your shrink item vs anti-magic field only deals 50d6 damage. Wait till your high level wizards/druids discover what they can do with shapechange... Of courst this does not apply to the anti-magic question.

Player: "I fly over the enemy using the bird form I changed to last round and change into a 200ft lead sphere. Can I borrow some d6s to roll for damage?" (3.0, use a collossal earth elemental in 3.5 for about 0.1% to 10% of the damage)

DM: "Shure, how many do you need?"

Player: "Lets see, I already have 10... so I need 14,828,307 more."

Now for an interesting excercise, calculate the hp of an earth sized planet based on its diameter (as is standard for all objects). You get a max of about 15 billion hp based on the hp/inch of iron. yes, you can destroy the earth with only 1 casting of stoneskin (to avoid the 1d6/attack falling damage) and 3 castings of shapechange.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

It's a conjuration with a duration other than instantaneous.

"Creation: 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."

As Thanee says, only Instantaneous Creations (like the Orb spells, or Acid Splash) will work in the field: "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."

Hm... you're right. Damn, but some rules make no sense. 4e sounds like a better idea all the time, if they manage to wipe out the inconsistencies.

I mean, either the thing is mundane after conjuration, and ignores both SR and antimagic fields, or it ignores neither.

So does the arrow fired from a magical bow beat DR X/Magic?

Nope, it isn't magial in nature.

What's the effective enhancement bonus of a +1 arrow fired from a +2 Orcbane bow at an orc standing in an AMF?

it's a non-magical (masterwork) bow fired from a +2 Orcbane bow. The orcbane, which is probably some ongoing magical effect, would probably not hold over, but the power and accuracy from the +2 enhancement will already have been used in firing the bow.

Depending on how you see that orcbane, it might even kick in despite the field (if it's like sneak attack, showing you where to shoot).

Nope. From the most recent Sage advice (Dragon #349, soon to be in the FAQ):
"Both the attacker and the target must be outside the antimagic field for any magic of the weapon (or other effects) to apply. (If you made a ranged attack across an antimagic field - that is, from outside the area, across some part of the spell's area, against another target outside the area - the attack would resolve normally.)"

Well, this either means that houserules make more sense here, or that the Sage isn't right. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Felix]

4e sounds like a better idea all the time, if they manage to wipe out the inconsistencies.

If we had some bread, we could have a ham sandwitch if we had some ham.

 

[Infiniti2000]

If we had some bread, we could have a ham sandwitch if we had some ham.

The Sand Witch is a new PrC in Sandstorm 4E.