# Stupid anti-magic field



## SemperJase (Dec 20, 2003)

My group is having a debate about the anti-magic field. 

A 12th level PC cast the anti-magic field. An 18th level cleric then cast Storm of Vengeance. In the 2nd round, acid rain starts falling. I ruled that the acid becomes real and is not stopped by the field. I reasoned that the field could not stop a rock being dropped on the PC, then real acid should not be stopped. 

Here is the question. Would the lightning generated by the storm in a later round be stopped by the field? 

Suppose the cleric cast Earthquake instead. Would the field stop the earthquake in its area of effect?

Would lightning from a wand of lightning be stopped?

I appreciate any feedback.


----------



## Alzrius (Dec 20, 2003)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> My group is having a debate about the anti-magic field.
> 
> A 12th level PC cast the anti-magic field. An 18th level cleric then cast Storm of Vengeance. In the 2nd round, acid rain starts falling. I ruled that the acid becomes real and is not stopped by the field. I reasoned that the field could not stop a rock being dropped on the PC, then real acid should not be stopped.




I'm inclined to say no. However, looking at the spell itself, it does say that it allows spell resistance. I view spell resistance as being similar to an anti-magic field, so in my opinion, that says something.



> _Here is the question. Would the lightning generated by the storm in a later round be stopped by the field?_




On the same token as above, most likely. The hailstones, wind, defeaning, etc. probably wouldnt be though. Remember to use SR as a judge.



> _Suppose the cleric cast Earthquake instead. Would the field stop the earthquake in its area of effect?_




No way. The magic is affecting the ground, not the character, so the anti-magic field is useless.



> _Would lightning from a wand of lightning be stopped?_




Absolutely. That is direct magic attacking the character, in the form of a lightning bolt. The anti-magic field would stop that attack cold.


----------



## Hardhead (Dec 20, 2003)

But doesn't the spell create real electrons that smack the guy?  Same thing as the acid, to my mind.

I mean, I see where you're coming from, but from a logical standpoint, what's the difference?


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Dec 20, 2003)

Whats the duration of the spell.
Is the acid rain part of the spell effect (and duration) or is it a side effect).

If its part of the duration then its part of the spell and thus is "supressed" by anti-magic shell.

If its a byproduct that is seprate from the spell duration then it can bypass the anti-magic shell.

A spell that causes a rock to move in the way you're describing is instantanous. If the spell guided the rock then it wouldnt be instantanous and the field would negate that too.

Anti-Magic field works on similar principles to dispell magic.


----------



## SemperJase (Dec 20, 2003)

ArthurQ said:
			
		

> A spell that causes a rock to move in the way you're describing is instantanous. If the spell guided the rock then it wouldnt be instantanous and the field would negate that too.




I would say the rock cannot move through the antimagic field. The magic moving it would be suppressed. The magic can move the rock OVER the field though. The AMF would not be able to suppress the Telekinesis. The person moving the rock could then end the Telekinesis. Even though the spell that moved the rock was a spell with duration, the rock still becomes a falling object that the AMF could not stop. 

In another case, I would say the AMF stops a lightning bolt from a wand. 

My question would be, does Storm of Vengeance create "magical" or "real" lightning.


----------



## Greyhawk_DM (Dec 20, 2003)

The Dungeon Master's Guide page 72 says the following:
{No supernatural ability, spell-like ability, or spell works in an area of antimagic.
Later on it says that only a Wall of Force, Prismatic Wall, and Prismatic Sphere are unaffected by an area of antimagic.}
Apparently the area of antimagic will suppress the spell before the spell affects are created unless it is one of the three above spells.

In previous editions of the game Anti-magic shell and Magic Resistance would not stop spell affects or spells that created something permanent. For example if you cast Wall of Iron the magic created a real "wall of iron" that could not be suppressed.

End result, you could interpret the spell either way. If you applied the 3rd Edition logic to the previous editions then in the example above, the wall of iron spell would be suppressed before it had a chance to create the wall. Or at least that's how i interpret what they are saying in the rules.

Bottom line, if that's how you interpret the spell, cool. Just be consistent in whatever you rule. I have found that most players have no problem in "rules interpretations" like the one above as long as you are somewhat logical and consistent in your rulings.


----------



## Dakkareth (Dec 20, 2003)

> For example if you cast Wall of Iron the magic created a real "wall of iron" that could not be suppressed.




... after the casting. An AMF would suppress it, if it was targeted inside the field.


----------



## Endur (Dec 20, 2003)

Well, the way I always viewed Wall of Iron vs. Anti-Magic Shell, was it depended on which came first.

If the Wall of Iron was created first, then the Anti-Magic Shell would have no effect on the non-magical wall of iron.  

If the Anti-Magic Shell was created first, then you couldn't create a Wall of Iron in the AMS's field of effect.



			
				Greyhawk_DM said:
			
		

> In previous editions of the game Anti-magic shell and Magic Resistance would not stop spell affects or spells that created something permanent. For example if you cast Wall of Iron the magic created a real "wall of iron" that could not be suppressed.
> 
> End result, you could interpret the spell either way. If you applied the 3rd Edition logic to the previous editions then in the example above, the wall of iron spell would be suppressed before it had a chance to create the wall. Or at least that's how i interpret what they are saying in the rules.
> 
> Bottom line, if that's how you interpret the spell, cool. Just be consistent in whatever you rule. I have found that most players have no problem in "rules interpretations" like the one above as long as you are somewhat logical and consistent in your rulings.


----------



## borc killer (Dec 20, 2003)

AMF suppresses all magical effects.  I interpret that in my game as anything that is being generated by magical means is prevented from functioning inside the AMF.  Lightening or acid would be suppressed in all cases if it was created by magical means… at least I can’t think of any case were I would let it work.

If a Wall of Stone is being cast outside of the AMF but its area would enter it that part of the wall is suppressed.  However, if the wall was made at some point in the past it would not be suppressed as the magical part of its creation is already over and thus no magic to suppress.

An Earthquake that is being cast at the person in an AMF would not be affected by it nor the ground inside of it. But casting an AMF on an area that had been affected by the spell in the past would not heal the ground (just like it does not heal wounds from a Fireball).  Now in this case if the Earthquake caused some other physical effect like destroying one end of a bridge that a person with the AMF was standing on the whole bridge would collapse with the person.  Or if you caused an avalanche that would affect the person in the AMF then it would affect them.

This is how I rule it.  Makes perfect since in a world ruled by both magic and physics.

Borc Killer


----------



## Greyhawk_DM (Dec 21, 2003)

Endur said:
			
		

> Well, the way I always viewed Wall of Iron vs. Anti-Magic Shell, was it depended on which came first.
> 
> If the Wall of Iron was created first, then the Anti-Magic Shell would have no effect on the non-magical wall of iron.
> 
> If the Anti-Magic Shell was created first, then you couldn't create a Wall of Iron in the AMS's field of effect.




I agree. AMS will prevent the spell from being cast while the caster is inside the area of effect.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 21, 2003)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> My group is having a debate about the anti-magic field.
> 
> A 12th level PC cast the anti-magic field. An 18th level cleric then cast Storm of Vengeance. In the 2nd round, acid rain starts falling. I ruled that the acid becomes real and is not stopped by the field. I reasoned that the field could not stop a rock being dropped on the PC, then real acid should not be stopped.
> 
> ...




I'd say all the storm effects are stopped.  Its magical acid, magical lightning, magical wind etc.  And yes earthquake would be supressed in its area of effect.  SR is a decent guide, but not perfect and earthquake is a good example IMO.  SR doesn't work vs earthquake because the ground is targeted and the effects are incidental to the target.  The target isn't being magically banished into the ground, the ground split open and he fell in.  Now then with anti magic field the entire area magic just isn't working so the magical effect making the earth move in that area is suppressed.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 21, 2003)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> I would say the rock cannot move through the antimagic field. The magic moving it would be suppressed. The magic can move the rock OVER the field though. The AMF would not be able to suppress the Telekinesis. The person moving the rock could then end the Telekinesis. Even though the spell that moved the rock was a spell with duration, the rock still becomes a falling object that the AMF could not stop.
> 
> In another case, I would say the AMF stops a lightning bolt from a wand.
> 
> My question would be, does Storm of Vengeance create "magical" or "real" lightning.





I'd say it would depend on how the rock was moved.  A sudden thrust variaiton of telekinesis I'd say the rock keeps moving, a sustained force version the rock stops.  The difference being in the sudden thrust version I see it as all the force is used where the target object starts its an instaneous effect and so the movement becomes nonmagical once it starts.  Sustained force variant the propulsion starts and continues to be magical from start to finish so it would cut out once it hit the field.

And to answer your quesiton since SR does apply it clearly is a magical effect.  In some cases where spell resistance doesn't apply its still a magical effect which may or may not be suppressed. Forcecage no SR but clearly a magical effect.  Whether you'd make it immune like wall of force or not is up to you, makes sense that it would but there are only specific examples not spells like wall of force listed as the exceptions.(atleast as Greyhawk_DM quoted, and I'm too lazy to check to see if its in 3.5 so I'll accept)


----------



## Tar Palantir (Aug 6, 2009)

Antimagic Field allows exceptions for Wall of Force, Forcecage, Prismatic Sphere and all conjuration spells with an instantaneous duration. Storm of Vengeance is none of these. Furthermore, it has the summoning subtype, and Antimagic Field clearly states that it suppresses summoned creatures; summoned objects would be no different. Earthquake would be blocked in the area of the field, as would a wand of lightning bolt. Wall of Stone, Wall of Iron, and the Orb line of spells would not be.

the spell's text from the SRD (bolded for emphasis):


> *Antimagic Field*
> 
> *Abjuration*
> 
> ...


----------

