# Wall of Force and Anti-Magic Field



## zepherus (Nov 16, 2010)

A tactic came up in my weekly game that caused quite a discussion, so I thought I would turn to all of you for an opinion.

The PC's had cast an Anti-Magic Field ( AMF ) to lock down an NPC. Another PC then decided they would block the NPC into the area using a Wall of Force (WoF), which due to the room constraints had to go through the antimagic field. 

The players read the AMF rule that stated a WoF would remain unaffected by an AMF. I ( the DM ) stated that the word "remains" is what makes it not work. I stated that if you had a WoF in place, THEN cast an AMF, the wall would remain...but it doesn't work in reverse. Since they had cast the AMF first, they could not build a WoF though it ( in that the wall would just not exist in the AMF ).

Opinions? Thoughts?

Thanks! - 

Zepherus


----------



## bobhayes (Nov 16, 2010)

You are correct. No spell can be cast into or through an area containing an anti-magic field; it is automatically suppressed. Existing walls of force, etc., are unaffected per their spell descriptions.


----------



## Dandu (Nov 16, 2010)

Double post


----------



## Dandu (Nov 16, 2010)

> An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. The space within  this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines.
> 
> An antimagic field  suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or  cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an  antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration.
> 
> ...



Important points:
1. AMF prevents the functioning of spells in its area of effect.
2. It does so by suppressing spells cast into it or brought into it, but not dispelling them.
3. Certain spells, such as a Wall of Force, remain unaffected when cast in an Antimagic Field.

This definitely means that you can cast a Wall of Force and have it remain in place if someone walks up to it with an AMF. It does not seem like you can cast a Wall of Force into an AMF, though RAW is a little poorly worded and ambiguous here. I'd say that the word "remain" implies that it had to be up beforehand.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 16, 2010)

bobhayes said:


> You are correct. No spell can be cast into or through an area containing an anti-magic field; it is automatically suppressed. Existing walls of force, etc., are unaffected per their spell descriptions.



Actually, this was recently shown to be incorrect in a similar discussion in this forum.


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it.



I.e. you can cast a Wall of Force that is partially or completely contained within the area of the antimagic field.


----------



## zepherus (Nov 18, 2010)

Right...you can cast a wall of force in an anti-magic field, and it will not be dispelled.

However, it will be suppressed within the confines of the anti-magic field for the duration of the anti-magic field ( or it's duration, whichever comes first ).

If the anti-magic field ends before the wall of force, then the wall will appear where it was cast. But as long as the anti-magic field is in use, the wall will not exist within the field.

That's how I read it, is there some previous post that definitively spells it out?

Zepherus


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 18, 2010)

zepherus said:


> Right...you can cast a wall of force in an anti-magic field, and it will not be dispelled.
> 
> However, it will be suppressed within the confines of the anti-magic field for the duration of the anti-magic field ( or it's duration, whichever comes first ).
> 
> If the anti-magic field ends before the wall of force, then the wall will appear where it was cast. But as long as the anti-magic field is in use, the wall will not exist within the field.



Yup, that appears to be correct.


----------



## steeldragons (Nov 18, 2010)

zepherus said:


> Right...you can cast a wall of force in an anti-magic field, and it will not be dispelled.
> 
> However, it will be suppressed within the confines of the anti-magic field for the duration of the anti-magic field ( or it's duration, whichever comes first ).




I have SUCH a big problem with this. Yes, by the book, this appears to be the correct interpretation. I can't argue that point.

But can someone please explain to me, how you are able to cast a spell (that is, harness and direct magical energies) _INSIDE_ a field that negates magical energies?

Even going by the book description pedantry of "Suppress" versus "Dispel/Cancel", how do you justify being able to work with magic, _at all_, in an area that does not allow magic to function? There's nothing for you to, metaphorically, "grab onto" to make a spell happen...whether the magic is to manifest inside the field or outside the field doesn't matter...it's being "suppressed."

You say the words, make the gestures, rub the rabbit fur or what have you, and magical energy does its thing per that "formula" (i.e. the spell). In an AMF, there is no "raw material" as it were to make the spell happen.

To attempt another metaphor, it's like trying to build a sandcastle (the spell) completely immersed in water (the AMF).

I see no reason/justification that casting _within_ an AMF should be allowed at all.

But, regardless, the OP made the right call. 

--SD


----------



## Dandu (Nov 18, 2010)

> You say the words, make the gestures, rub the rabbit fur or what have  you, and magical energy does its thing per that "formula" (i.e. the  spell). In an AMF, there is no "raw material" as it were to make the spell happen.



The raw material is there, it is just inert for the time being.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 19, 2010)

steeldragons said:


> But can someone please explain to me, how you are able to cast a spell (that is, harness and direct magical energies) _INSIDE_ a field that negates magical energies?



That's exactly the fine distinction that is difficult to see if you don't read the effect of an Antimagic Field carefully. It does not negate magic per se, it just negates the effects created by magic. I.e. you can cast your spells just fine, but nothing appears to happen - until you leave the field or the field expires.

There are comparable real-world examples for this kind of behaviour, and suppression is actually a good way to describe it. If anything it's the name 'Antimagic Field' that is misleading, it could have been called more accurately 'Magic Suppression Field'.

E.g. in medicine, pain-killers work similarly: They don't actually do anything to eliminate the source of the pain, they just allow you to no longer feel any pain while the pain-killer is in effect.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jun 5, 2011)

Old thread I know, but I cant help but wonder.

HOW could you be in a room with no room to cast a WoF between yourself and a target surrounded by an antimagic field? I'm just trying to visualize it. 

If this = O anitmagic field
and
If this = | wall of force...

How would O| be arranged within a room [O|] so that it would be impossible for you to put up the wall between yourself and the AMF in a way the WoF doesnt actually have to pass through the AMFs are?

Remember, the WoF has no thickness, so even if there werent a mm between you and the AMF, if you were outside of it, there should be a way to draw a straight line outside the circle from one end of the room to the other. Also its area is only UP to one 10ft square/lvl even at minimum caster lvl. So it could certainly be smaller, even smaller than a 10ft square.


EDIT: Also a question: 

....Even if a WoF is unaffected by an AMF, does the WoF curtail the AMFs area like an ACTUAL real wall? or would it pass through the WoF so it would negate other magic or casting on the other side? WoF says spells cant pass through the wall, so would it not only be unaffected, but not let things on the other side be suppresed?


----------

