# Casting spells in Antimagic Fields



## Jimlock (Oct 11, 2011)

A question that I'm sure has been asked before...

Can you "cast" a spell while in an Antimagic Field? Surely all magic effects are "supressed" within it (except those noted), but can you "cast" a spell in it?

I say yes, but perhaps I'm missing something...




> Antimagic Field
> Abjuration
> Level:	Clr 8, Magic 6, Protection 6, Sor/Wiz 6
> Components:	V, S, M/DF
> ...


----------



## jonesy (Oct 11, 2011)

If you have the Initiate of Mystra feat you can.


----------



## Jimlock (Oct 11, 2011)

jonesy said:


> If you have the Initiate of Mystra feat you can.




This is one point of view. Personally I don't believe it's really supported by RAW.

Here are some arguments I found very convincing in a thread from Giant In The Playground:


POST#8



> If I had to argue against it, I would say from a balance point of view should a 6th level spell completely protect you from almost all 7th, 8th, 9th and Epic level spells, along with spell-like abilities and supernatural effects for 2+ hours at a time? That seems a bit overpowered to me, even with the downsides it obviously has.
> 
> The reason we can argue this is because the RAW never clearly states that the act of spellcasting is itself magical. In fact, by making it an action like any others, it strongly hints that it isn't. Does AMF prevent drinking a potion? It inhibits the potion from taking effect certainly, but it doesn't stop the potions spell from being activated if it has a duration.
> 
> ...





POST#14


> I think the wording is VERY precise, and very clear. They very carefully chose the words FUNCTIONING and SUPRESSING rather than being more open and saying that no spell can be cast from inside and no spell can be cast into. They also note that "Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration.". What this means is that any spell can be cast within or without of the field into or out of the field, however it will have NO EFFECT inside the field.
> 
> For example...a wizard casts scorching ray on a target outside of the field. The ray's firey magical effect will be supressed against any target inside the field, however it will pass through the field and proceed to strike the target outside of the field.
> 
> ...






POST#21



> This is based on RAW and not balance or intend (even though intend could be argued to be clear based on the publication of the RC).
> 
> Suppressed is different from being negated, it strongly suggest that the effect is active but non-functioning.
> 
> ...





POST#25



> RAW it doesn't seem to me like AMF prevents spellcasting. The spell describes many things it does do, but none of them include "spells cannot be cast inside an antimagic field," which, if they had wanted to, would really be a very simple clarification to add. The fact that it doesn't say this I think makes it pretty clear that spellcasting is allowed inside the field (at least by RAW - I would probably not allow it as a DM regardless of RAW).
> 
> As for RAI... well, that really isn't clear either. Yes, a source in Dragon magazine and a source in Faerun imply that spells can't normally be cast in an AMF, but Dragon and Faerun != core rules (and thank god for that...). Their interpretation is not necessarily the correct interpretation.
> 
> The note from rules compendium about a spell failing if its point of origin is inside an AMF is unrelated - the "point of origin" of a spell has nothing to do with the caster's position. Point of origin refers to the center point of a spell with an area effect (i.e. where the spell's effect spreads out from). It is somewhat unclear exactly which areas have points of origin - they are specifically mentioned for spheres, cylinders, bursts and emanations, but not for rays, lines or cones. Personally, I would say that a ray, line or cone has a point of origin at a corner of the caster's space. The others, however, all have selectable points of origin, and can be placed away from the caster if he is casting inside an AMF.


----------



## Jimlock (Oct 11, 2011)

and another interesting thread on the subject:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/112977-casting-spells-out-antimagic-field.html


----------



## jonesy (Oct 11, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> This is one point of view. Personally I don't believe it's really supported by RAW.



RAW doesn't support Initiate of Mystra? Umm, what are you talking about?



> Here are some arguments I found very convincing in a thread from Giant In The Playground/COLOR]



Interesting thread. Lots of ideas for casters inside an AMF like Invoke Magic, Extraordinary Spell Aim, Mastery of Shaping and the Sculpt Spell metamagic.

But as for this thread, you haven't actually given an argument yet. Even the GiTP thread is a big RAI vs RAW debate without a clear result.


----------



## airwalkrr (Oct 11, 2011)

This question has been addressed numerous times via official channels, but it always seems unclear for some reason.







			
				Rules Compendium 11 said:
			
		

> If an instantaneous spell is entirely suppressed, that spell is effectively canceled.



This, to me, suggests any spell cast with an origination point inside an area of antimagic is canceled. E.g. caster inside antimagic field casts scorching ray and the effect is canceled, whether the target is inside the field or not.

Now to play devil's advocate, I could argue that the term "entirely suppressed" means that both the origination point and the target point have to be within the field for the spell to be canceled. After all, the word "entirely" could be interpreted more broadly.







			
				Rules Compendium 11 said:
			
		

> An instantaneous area spell is only entirely suppressed if its point of origin is within the antimagic area.



This quote is part of the same paragraph as the first, which suggests they are meant to be taken as a discussion of the same aspect of the rules. Hence, I think the second part supports my interpretation that a spell is considered entirely suppressed if its point of origin is within the antimagic field. I also believe this interpretation naturally leads to the conclusion that spells cannot be cast while the caster is within the area of antimagic.

So, no, according to my interpretation you can't blast your foes with destruction and flame strike while sitting safely within the effect of an antimagic field and immune to your opponent's magical counterstrikes.

I will also add to the discussion the way antimagic works in Dungeons & Dragons Online (DDO), which, while in no means is a definitive rules source for tabletop D&D, is intended to follow the 3.5 game system as closely as possible. In DDO, when a character enters an area of antimagic (typically a beholder's gaze), any spellcasting attempts by that character fail completely (and use up spell points in the process as if the character had cast the spell). Now antimagic doesn't simply suppress magic in DDO either. It actually dispels all magical effects on the character who enters it, but I imagine this has more to do with the difficulty of programming a suppressing effect compared with the simplicity of programming a dispelling effect.

In summary:
*Q: Can you "cast" a spell while in an Antimagic Field?*
A: If a caster is completely within the area of an antimagic field when attempting to cast a spell, that spell is canceled and the spell slot used to cast the spell is used up.


----------



## Jimlock (Oct 11, 2011)

jonesy said:


> RAW doesn't support Initiate of Mystra? Umm, what are you talking about?




I asked:
_Can you "cast" a spell while in an Antimagic Field?_

And you answered:
_If you have the Initiate of Mystra feat you can._

From which I understood the following:
_No, but If you have the Initiate of Mystra feat you can._

...so I answered to that 




jonesy said:


> Interesting thread. Lots of ideas for casters inside an AMF like Invoke Magic, Extraordinary Spell Aim, Mastery of Shaping and the Sculpt Spell metamagic.
> 
> But as for this thread, you haven't actually given an argument yet. Even the GiTP thread is a big RAI vs RAW debate without a clear result.




Even though I'm not sure myself, I lean towards the pro-casting arguments:

1) The RAW never clearly state that the act of spellcasting is itself magical.

2) Nowhere does it say that you can't "cast" a spell in an AMF. 
The AMFprevents the functioning of magic. The AMF "suppresses" magic.

That's as far as RAW and RAI goes. Personally I think it makes more sense if you CANNOT cast from within an AMF.


----------



## jonesy (Oct 11, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> I asked:
> _Can you "cast" a spell while in an Antimagic Field?_
> 
> And you answered:
> ...



Ah. Ok. 



> Even though I'm not sure myself, I lean towards the pro-casting arguments:
> 
> 1) The RAW never clearly state that the act of spellcasting is itself magical.
> 
> ...



I actually agree with all of that. Especially the last sentence.



airwalkrr said:


> Rules Compendium 11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Q: Can you "cast" a spell while in an Antimagic Field?
> A: If a caster is completely within the area of an antimagic field when attempting to cast a spell, that spell is canceled and the spell slot used to cast the spell is used up.



Yeah, I don't follow that at all. How do you get from instantaneous spells getting cancelled to all spells getting cancelled?


----------



## airwalkrr (Oct 11, 2011)

jonesy said:


> Yeah, I don't follow that at all. How do you get from instantaneous spells getting cancelled to all spells getting cancelled?



Context. I was lazy and didn't want to type out the entire section on antimagic from the RC. But here's another key sentence.







			
				Rules Compendium 11 said:
			
		

> If a spell's point of origin is inside an antimagic area, that spell is entirely suppressed.



Maybe I should have posted this sentence first since it occurs before the other two passages I quoted. I might be going out on a limb here, but if the spell is entirely suppressed, that seems to indicate the same thing to me as saying it is canceled and the two passages I previously quoted appear to back that up.


----------



## Jimlock (Oct 11, 2011)

airwalkrr said:


> Rules Compendium 11 said:
> 
> 
> > If a spell's point of origin is inside an antimagic area, that spell is entirely suppressed.




Point of origin is irrelevant to where the caster stands and casts the spell.


----------



## jonesy (Oct 11, 2011)

airwalkrr said:


> I might be going out on a limb here, but if the spell is entirely suppressed, that seems to indicate the same thing to me as saying it is canceled and the two passages I previously quoted appear to back that up.



But according to what it is saying that still only cancels it if it is an instantaneous spell. I don't see any difference between suppressed and entirely suppressed if it is not an instantaneous spell. The wording of the whole thing is really muddled.


----------



## Jimlock (Oct 11, 2011)

_-Oh my god... how can this spell be so ****ed up after all the errata... all the revisions... the RC... the Q&As...._

_-Yeah... tell me about it..._


----------



## airwalkrr (Oct 11, 2011)

This has historically been one of the most debated spells in any edition of the game. If you didn't want to get into a debate, you never should have clicked on this thread.


----------



## airwalkrr (Oct 12, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> Point of origin is irrelevant to where the caster stands and casts the spell.



Technically, you are correct. The point of origin can be anywhere within the range of the spell for many spells. For some spells, like ray spells though, I think the point of origin is by definition the caster. So the question is whether something like the following could happen: a wizard completely within an antimagic field then attempts to cast charm monster on a monster outside the field.

First of all, given the way magic is described throughout D&D, the caster is inherently tied to the magic of his spells. So it flies in the face of logic to suggest that the above example would be possible. Appealing to logic doesn't always convince people when talking about rules though, especially when the rules are so tied up in specific terminology.

Second, there is a lot of evidence that the designers never intended to allow antimagic field to let casters cast spells within it. The Initiate of Mystra feat certainly seems to be designed for casters who find themselves within an antimagic field. But it could be interpreted to mean the caster with the feat can just create magic with a point of origin in the antimagic field.

This is entirely anecdotal, but when I played in Living Greyhawk (I was very active in the community, probably over a thousand hours of gameplay as both a player and judge), I never saw any judge allow a character to use any magical ability if the character was inside an antimagic field at the time. And I played all over the United States in at least a half dozen states. I am sure there are people with different experiences though, which is why threads like this even exist.

So what's the answer? I can't really tell you with 100% certainty because there seems to be some ambiguity written into the spell and an almost intentional avoidance to address the specific issue of whether a caster can or can't cast a spell while inside an antimagic field. You'd think it would be a fairly straightforward question to answer and one that would be included in the spell, but either the designers thought it was obvious the way it was written or intentionally left it void. I am leaning towards the former, but then the argument just boils down to the true intent, which is hard to discern without Monte Cook, Skip Williams, or someone similar chiming in on the subject.


----------



## Jackinthegreen (Oct 12, 2011)

As already mentioned in perhaps more words, the act itself of casting a spell is not magical.  The action is performed and wasted after all.  The effect of the spell is magical though, unless otherwise noted.

The origination point is almost universally considered to be the caster.  This, however, could lead to some interesting circumstances.  What part of the caster?  What happens when the caster is in the AMF, but his hands (or other body parts applicable) are not and he casts a somatic spell?  One could argue a Small or Medium creature standing on the edge of an AMF could cast under such circumstances, since they have 5 foot reach after all.

Such an interpretation would mean the origin of a spell is based off its casting components.  A verbal and somatic spell would require someone's respective sources to be outside an AMF.  What about material components or foci?  Those probably have to be outside the AMF as well.


----------



## Greenfield (Oct 14, 2011)

Balance wise, I'm in the "No casting" camp.  Particularly with the addition from Rules Compendium.  That adds support from the rules as well.

If my 6th level spell makes me 100% immune to all incoming spells, yet allows me to blast away with impunity, it's broken.  Period.

And if the Rules Compendium says that spells can't originate from inside at all, and that enforces good game balance, who am I to argue?


----------



## Arrowhawk (Oct 14, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> A question that I'm sure has been asked before...
> 
> Can you "cast" a spell while in an Antimagic Field? Surely all magic effects are "supressed" within it (except those noted), but can you "cast" a spell in it?
> 
> ...




I haven't researched this independently of this thread.   Reading the spell and noting the specific use of "suppress" instead of cancel...and noting that it specifically says magic is not "dispelled"....my objective opinion is:

Yes.  You can definitely cast a spell within an AMF.   What happens depends on the type of spell.   For example, if you cast Mage Armor within the AMF...the spell  is cast...it just has no effect until you leave the AMF.  

Based on the description you've provided, the best way to think of an AMF is as a "dampening field."   Except the dampening level is infinite so all magic is suppressed.  An instantaneous spell is cancelled within an AMF because it only lasts an instant and that instant it is entirely suppressed.   A Scorching Ray or any other damage dealing spell that specifically originates from the spell casters hands and takes effect instantly, would not work.  The Ray would not propagate invisibly inside the field and spring to life outside of it.

It's not that complicated.  Now, there are probably a number of spells I don't know about that would be difficult to determine, and there may be other WotC discussions or explanations that might confuse the matter.  But on the face of what you've provided...it seems pretty straight forward.

So once again, casting, bard music, and everything else, magic can be done inside an AMF...they are just dampened to have zero magnitude while in the AMF.  

That's my story and I'm sticking to it....for now.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Oct 14, 2011)

Greenfield said:


> If my 6th level spell makes me 100% immune to all incoming spells, yet allows me to blast away with impunity, it's broken.  Period.




I thought you were a RAW kind of guy?


----------



## Greenfield (Oct 14, 2011)

And if RAW (as per Rules Compendium) says that "If a spell's point of origin is inside an antimagic area, that spell is entirely suppressed.", then I can't cast Mage Armor, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, Scorching Ray or any other spell that originates at the caster, then RAW backs me up.

I'll have to check the RC myself, just to be sure, before I make that my final position though.

In our campaigns we've always played it that AMF can't be used to walk through _Wall of Force, Force Cube, Prismatic Wall _or_ Prismatic Sphere_, if the spells are already in place, but that you can't cast those (or any other spells) into an AMF.

Why?  All of those spells have specific effects you need to bring them down, so AMF won't, but AMF says spells cast into the area are suppressed while the AMF is up.  So whoever gets there first wins.

YMMV, of course.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Oct 14, 2011)

Greenfield said:


> And if RAW (as per Rules Compendium) says that "If a spell's point of origin is inside an antimagic area, that spell is entirely suppressed.", then I can't cast Mage Armor, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, Scorching Ray or any other spell that originates at the caster, then RAW backs me up.



There is s fundamental difference between "suppressing" a spell and canceling a spell or dispelling.  You can't "suppress" a spell unless it is in effect.  It would be nonsensical to use the word "suppress" if the spell was just flat cancelled or couldn't be cast.  RAW explicitly states the spell is NOT dispelled.  the RC also says this.

If an instantaneous spell is entirely suppressed, that spell is effectively canceled. (It’s suppressed, and its duration instantaneously expires.) An *instantaneous *area spell is only entirely suppressed and effectively canceled if its point of origin is within the antimagic area. *Otherwise it works like any other area spell that has a point of origin outside the antimagic area*—only where its area overlaps the antimagic area is its effect is suppressed (and effectively canceled).​
Emphasis added.

For me this is dispositive.  Spells can be cast inside AMF and ONLY when they are "instantaneous" and are cast within the AMF are they "effectively" cancelled...and that's ONLY because the duration expires...not because the magic doesn't work.  The key phrase is "effectively canceled"...not just plain cancelled. 


Does this create playability issues?  I don't know...but per RAW a spell is not cancelled...it's suppressed.  "Suppress" is the key term here.  It would be trivial for them to say the spell is cancelled.  They even use that exact word when talking about instantaneous spells.  The choice of suppress is not random or accidental, it's chosen purposely.


----------



## Greenfield (Oct 14, 2011)

I see the distinction, but not the functional difference.

If my blasting spell originates inside the AMF and is therefore entirely suppressed, functionally the spell never went off.  Pull trigger, no boom-boom.

Call it one, call it the other, then end result is the same.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Oct 14, 2011)

Greenfield said:


> I see the distinction, but not the functional difference.
> 
> If my blasting spell originates inside the AMF and is therefore entirely suppressed, functionally the spell never went off.  Pull trigger, no boom-boom.
> 
> Call it one, call it the other, then end result is the same.




There is a huge functional difference depending on the spell.  Look at Mage Armor.  I can cast it within an AMF...and as soon as I walk out...it's active at full strength.  This is quite different than saying I couldn't cast the spell to begin with.  Same with any stat boosts, etc.  

Now here's the part you're not going to like...

I got this from the RC p.134

*AREA*
Some spells affect an area. Sometimes a spell description specifies a specially defined area, but usually an area is a burst, an emanation, or a spread. Regardless of the shape of the area, *you select the point where the spell originates*, but you don’t otherwise control which creatures or objects the spell affects. *The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection*. You must have line of effect to the point of origin.​
Emphasis added.

In essence, this means a whole slew of offensive spells can be cast _inside _an AMF and still affect creatures outside of it...like Sleep.  Does that create playability problems?  Maybe.  But that's the RAW as it appears to be written.  Unless someone has a WotC article addressing this somewhere.  The only other caveat is that the guy who appears to have written and edited the RC is not one of the original authors for the PHB.  Don't know if that means anything or not.

EDIT:

I just noticed it says "line of effect to the point of orign"  I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think that should be line of "sight" not "effect" as I'm do not belief "line of effect" is a term of art.


----------



## kitcik (Oct 14, 2011)

I agree with that except the edit. Line of effect means unobstructed (in a physical sense) and is an official term.


----------



## airwalkrr (Oct 14, 2011)

Jackinthegreen said:


> As already mentioned in perhaps more words, the act itself of casting a spell is not magical.  The action is performed and wasted after all.  The effect of the spell is magical though, unless otherwise noted.



While I agree with you that this is absolutely the way the spell is intended to work, the problem that rules lawyers have can be laid out below.







Jackinthegreen said:


> The origination point is almost universally considered to be the caster.



This is not technically true. See the description of Area in the SRD. This is mirrored in the RC as Arrowhawk points out above. The key phrase is "you select the point where the spell originates." And it is clear from an objective reading that this point, generally referred to as the "point of origin" or PoO, can be anywhere within the range of the spell. Thus, the argument goes, a caster who is completely inside an antimagic field ought to technically be able to cast a fireball spell so long as the caster places the PoO outside of the antimagic field. Obviously, this is patently ridiculous. As Greenfield states above, such an interpretation would make the spell broken. Period. But I digress.







Jackinthegreen said:


> This, however, could lead to some interesting circumstances.



  What part of the caster?  What happens when the caster is in the AMF, but his hands (or other body parts applicable) are not and he casts a somatic spell?  One could argue a Small or Medium creature standing on the edge of an AMF could cast under such circumstances, since they have 5 foot reach after all.[/quote]No, this is not really arguable. A creature occupies the space that they occupy and can only extend out within their reach for the purposes of making attacks. That is the only situation for which the rules ever allows a creature to theoretically be somewhere other than the square(s) it occupies. It might make some logical sense that a caster ought to be able to poke his head outside the area of effect to speak the verbal components and stick his fingers out to use the somatic components, and if you are such a DM, this is all well and good. But the game rules don't allow for it. If they did, it would open up a huge can of worms for all area effects in general. Suppose a caster stuck on the edge of a web spell wants to argue "but my hands were outside the area when the spell was cast so they are free to cast spells right?" This kind of argument ad nauseum.







Jackinthegreen said:


> Such an interpretation would mean the origin of a spell is based off its casting components.  A verbal and somatic spell would require someone's respective sources to be outside an AMF.  What about material components or foci?  Those probably have to be outside the AMF as well.



As I pointed out, the definition of the point of origin is actually pretty specific. It has to be at the intersection of a gridline and within the range of the spell, but the caster chooses it. If it weren't for this, the argument over antimagic field probably wouldn't exist to the extent that it is, but this is so, and thus the argument is there.

But for myself, I can't see any designer ever thinking that a wizard could sit inside an antimagic field and cast horrid wilting, fireball, or whatever on targets who are outside it and believe that to be balanced. Most people agree. Rules lawyers don't because the spell is worded poorly. I prefer to interpret the rules in the spirit of balance and say that all magic has to originate from the caster before any point of origin is determined. So the sitting safely inside the AMF and casting out of it is not possible.

I can entertain the argument that a caster inside an AMF could cast mage armor on himself then step outside and have the spell become active, but in my opinion, that still crosses the line. Consider the wizard who casts AMF then proceeds to cast every single buff spell in the world before dismissing the AMF. If he is standing somewhere (say on a high ledge) where he is practically unreachable, then he is nigh invulnerable until he decides to switch off the AMF, at which point, because of his buff spells, he IS invulnerable for all practical purposes. Compare that to time stop, which only gives you 1d4+1 rounds to buff. And time stop is a 9th level spell. Obviously a 6th-level spell can't be so much better. Sometimes you just have to use the greater context of the game to guide your interpretation of the rules.

Therefore I consider the term "suppress" to be a little more broad than some rules lawyers might argue. Magic just doesn't work inside an AMF. And the only magic effects that persist, are those that existed before the AMF was cast. So 1) cast mage armor, 2) cast AMF and the mage armor is active but suppressed. Do it the other way around where 1) cast AMF, 2) cast mage armor, and the mage armor spell fails. It isn't practical to interpret the spell any other way IMHO. I acknowledge that the technical case for an argument is there, but it wouldn't make sense in the greater context of the game.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Oct 14, 2011)

First, Rule 0 always applies, so you can do what you want.

But this is incorrect:



> Consider the wizard who casts AMF then proceeds to cast every single buff spell in the world before dismissing the AMF. If he is standing somewhere (say on a high ledge) where he is practically unreachable, then he is nigh invulnerable until he decides to switch off the AMF, at which point, because of his buff spells, he IS invulnerable for all practical purposes.




No...the caster in not "nigh invulnderable."  In fact, a caster in an AMF is extremely vulnerable...just not to other _casters_.  An AMF field is dandgerous place to stand if any significant portion of your protection comes from magic.  You also forget that healing spells won't work their either.  So the idea of a mage casting spells from the "protection" of an AMF is severely skewed unless the only thing he has to fight are other mages.

That fact that a mage in an AMF is completely defenseless is a huge "balancing" act.  The idea of putting the mage on some high cliff completely inaccessible by conventional weapons is what is game breaking.   Nevertheless, anyone with a flight spell or Teleport or Stone to Mud (on the cliff right below the AMF), could still affect the caster.  Any melee-type that gets inside that AMF is going to carve that mage up into confetti.

The last place I want my mage to be in any normal encounter is inside an AMF.  On the highly unlikely  occasion that the only thing I'm fighting is casters....I get the feeling they're going to have their own AMF's.


----------



## Jimlock (Oct 14, 2011)

airwalkrr said:


> While I agree with you that this is absolutely the way the spell is intended to work, the problem that rules lawyers have can be laid out below.This is not technically true. See the description of Area in the SRD. This is mirrored in the RC as Arrowhawk points out above. The key phrase is "you select the point where the spell originates." And it is clear from an objective reading that this point, generally referred to as the "point of origin" or PoO, can be anywhere within the range of the spell. Thus, the argument goes, a caster who is completely inside an antimagic field ought to technically be able to cast a fireball spell so long as the caster places the PoO outside of the antimagic field. Obviously, this is patently ridiculous. As Greenfield states above, such an interpretation would make the spell broken. Period. But I digress.  What part of the caster?  What happens when the caster is in the AMF, but his hands (or other body parts applicable) are not and he casts a somatic spell?  One could argue a Small or Medium creature standing on the edge of an AMF could cast under such circumstances, since they have 5 foot reach after all.
> 
> No, this is not really arguable. A creature occupies the space that they occupy and can only extend out within their reach for the purposes of making attacks. That is the only situation for which the rules ever allows a creature to theoretically be somewhere other than the square(s) it occupies. It might make some logical sense that a caster ought to be able to poke his head outside the area of effect to speak the verbal components and stick his fingers out to use the somatic components, and if you are such a DM, this is all well and good. But the game rules don't allow for it. If they did, it would open up a huge can of worms for all area effects in general. Suppose a caster stuck on the edge of a web spell wants to argue "but my hands were outside the area when the spell was cast so they are free to cast spells right?" This kind of argument ad nauseum.As I pointed out, the definition of the point of origin is actually pretty specific. It has to be at the intersection of a gridline and within the range of the spell, but the caster chooses it. If it weren't for this, the argument over antimagic field probably wouldn't exist to the extent that it is, but this is so, and thus the argument is there.
> 
> ...




Well said sir, I agree with you 100%.

Unfortunately I can't XP you.


----------



## Jimlock (Oct 14, 2011)

Gentlemen ([MENTION=12460]airwalkrr[/MENTION], [MENTION=10324]jonesy[/MENTION], [MENTION=6678119]Jackinthegreen[/MENTION], [MENTION=98256]kitcik[/MENTION],  [MENTION=6679551]Arrowhawk[/MENTION], [MENTION=6669384]Greenfield[/MENTION]),

since you 've all participated in this thread and are now aware of the debate over AMF, I kindly ask you to check the following thread and give me, if you may, your opinions/answers on the two questions asked.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/312509-initiate-mystra-questions.html

I thank you in advance.


----------



## jefgorbach (Oct 14, 2011)

Paragraph2 of your quoted text confirms spells CAN be cast within an AMF and that "Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration." 

So while it would pointless to cast Instant/short-lived spells, it IS possible to rebuff/etc while AMF is up and could be an interesting tactic to setup prolonged spells during the AMF to catch high-level foes in an unsuspecting "trap" of multiple effects when they suddenly become simultaneously "active" when the AMF ends.


----------



## airwalkrr (Oct 15, 2011)

jefgorbach said:


> Paragraph2 of your quoted text confirms spells CAN be cast within an AMF and that "Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration."
> 
> So while it would pointless to cast Instant/short-lived spells, it IS possible to rebuff/etc while AMF is up and could be an interesting tactic to setup prolonged spells during the AMF to catch high-level foes in an unsuspecting "trap" of multiple effects when they suddenly become simultaneously "active" when the AMF ends.



I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

Something tells me if EGG were still around and were to weigh in with his opinion on the original intent of the antimagic shell spell (its original name), he would reply with something curt and chiding like this: "Of course a magic-user can't cast a spell inside an antimagic shell, nor would he ever try! Why do you think it was called 'antimagic shell' in the first place?"

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think this spell was ever designed to cause this much of a headache. You're inside the AMF: magic doesn't work. You're outside the AMF: magic works normally. I curse the 3e designers for even adding in the stupid suppression stipulation!


----------



## Arrowhawk (Oct 15, 2011)

airwalkrr said:


> l. Thus, the argument goes, a caster who is completely inside an antimagic field ought to technically be able to cast a fireball spell so long as the caster places the PoO outside of the antimagic field. Obviously, this is patently ridiculous. As Greenfield states above, such an interpretation would make the spell broken. Period.




Apologies for belaboring the point, but I think it's important to play the devil's advocate here once again.

To cast AMF, you need to be at least an 11th level Wizard.  It's probably a safe bet that a Wizard at that level is going to be decked out with magic items, not to mention routinely protect him/herself with boat loads of buffs in a battle.  As I mentioned before, standing at the center of an AMF field is one of the worst places to be in an traditional combat.   You know that Protection  From Arrows that makes you ignore the opposing Ranger?  Ain't working.  You know that permanent See Invisibility you had cast on you?  Ain't working.  That Barbarian standing in your 5' reach zone?  You ain't Holding him.  Remember that Hat with +4 Intelligence boost you're wearing?  Nada.  You're back to having a 20 Int.   Probably coming down from the 28 or 30 you normally walk around at. 

Any caster who sits in the middle of an AMF to do their blasting is playing with fire.   It's hard to argue the spell is "...broken. Period" when one considers the totality of the situation.

And here's another thing to consider, AMF fields used by opposing creatures are exactly what the doctor ordered for those Melee types who don't feel useful with casters.  An NPC caster blasting from an AMF is great way to make the caster in the party appreciate the benefit of teammates. 

Just something to consider before you get in a rush to Rule 0 an AMF.


----------



## Dandu (Oct 15, 2011)

> An NPC caster blasting from an AMF is great way to make the caster in the party appreciate the benefit of teammates.



Eh, Orb of Force.


----------



## airwalkrr (Oct 15, 2011)

Dandu said:


> Eh, Orb of Force.



I was wondering when Dandu was going to sneak in and unleash a one-liner into this conversation.


----------



## dakuth (Jun 26, 2012)

Hi Guys,

Sorry to resurrect this old thread - but I was looking for AMF rules clarifications and this was an early hit.

This might actually end the argument once and for all:

Rules of the Game: Reading Spell Descriptions (Part One)

This is an actual quote from Skip Williams:
"Line of Effect: A straight, unblocked line between two locations on the battlefield. Line of effect is just like line of sight, except that restrictions on vision don't apply.

On the other hand, some things that you can see through can block line of effect, such as a wall of force or an antimagic field. Though the rules don't specifically say so, you always have line of effect to yourself."

With LoE blocked - you effectively can't cast aggressively out of the AMF. Combined with the PoO stipulations this means:

You can *buff yourself* inside a AMF, but cannot cast OUT of a AMF because you can't target things without LoE (but always have LoE to yourself.)


----------



## Dandu (Jun 26, 2012)

Skip Williams doesn't have a habit of solving rules debates due to the fact that half the time he pulls his opinions out of his bag of holding.


----------



## Greenfield (Jun 26, 2012)

And, to point, you may be able to buff yourself in an AMF, but the buffing won't actually have any effect while you're in there.

There's been some debate on whether you can cast in an AMF.  There is really no debate on whether spells affect anyone in an AMF though, including the caster.


----------



## dakuth (Jun 27, 2012)

airwalkrr said:


> ...without Monte Cook, Skip Williams, or someone similar chiming in on the subject.




Someone specifically asks Skip Williams to chime in on the subject... and he has. RAI? Antimagic field blocks Line of Effect.

Since he's one of the 3e designers, pulling it out of a bag of holding makes it pretty much RAW and/or RAI


----------



## dakuth (Jun 27, 2012)

Greenfield said:


> And, to point, you may be able to buff yourself in an AMF, but the buffing won't actually have any effect while you're in there.



Correct


Greenfield said:


> There's been some debate on whether you can cast in an AMF.  There is really no debate on whether spells affect anyone in an AMF though, including the caster.




I suppose it doesn't completely clear it up, since he didn't explicitly say so - but for my mind it seems quite obvious that it's allowed. By blocking LoE, the only thing worth casting is self-buffs since the ONLY thing you have LoE to is yourself.


----------



## Greenfield (Jun 27, 2012)

The problem is that what Skip said runs 100% contrary to the written rules.

Throw a _Fireball_ through an AMF and, as written, the spell will reach it's destination on the far side of the field.  It just won't exist within the AMF.

According to Skip, however, the "line of effect" between caster and detonation point is interrupted by the AMF, and the spell fails.

So I'll have to say that Skip is wrong, in that his position runs directly contrary to what the rules actually say.  It isn't a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of reading comprehension.


----------



## dakuth (Jun 27, 2012)

Greenfield said:


> The problem is that what Skip said runs 100% contrary to the written rules.
> 
> Throw a _Fireball_ through an AMF and, as written, the spell will reach it's destination on the far side of the field.  It just won't exist within the AMF.
> 
> ...




Please quote the rules that specifically say you can cast through a AMF. I haven't played 3.5 in a while - but looking at the OP of this thread, and there is no mention.

3.75 is the same (no mention) and is what I actually play (and why I stumbled on this thread.)

Unless it is mentioned elsewhere specifically that you can cast THROUGH the AMF, it is definitely NOT 100% contrary to the rules. The rules merely do not mention _one way or the other_ - this is where clarification by one of the designers is helpful.


----------



## dakuth (Jun 27, 2012)

Actually I wanted to add a bit more:

Yes, the rules as written certainly do imply you can through a fireball through it (by the omission of it being blocked) - which is the concern for many players and the cause of so many AMF debates.

Yes, according to Skip the LoE is blocked, and you CAN'T do that. That's exactly what I'm saying: The rules never specified, so some people assumed that they could simply cast through an AMF. This didn't make much sense, but the rules didn't say you couldn't....... now they do due to a clarification by one of the designers.


----------



## Greenfield (Jun 27, 2012)

The rules also don't specify whether a club or axe works in an AMF.  They only mention swords.  The "lack of omission" argument lacks.

What the spell does say is that magical items or effects are suppressed, not dispelled, and that any that leave the AMF (or the AMF moves away from) will resume.  

So anything passing through can do so, they simply don't exist within the space of the AntiMagic field.

The fact is, neither the spell description, nor the description of Anti-Magic in general, ever mention anything resembling "line of effect".

And they do specifically say that the AMF doesn't dispel anything.

But let's pick an example other than _Fireball_.  The tiny bead can be seen as a "thing", and the rules are pretty clear that magic "things" can enter (and be suppressed) then leave again and resume normal function.

Let's look instead at two spells:  _Lightning Bolt_ and _Chain Lightning_.

If you cast a Lightning Bolt through an AMF, you're looking at a "line of effect" that is also the area of effect.  Areas of effect are explicitly discussed in the AMF spell description.


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> • Spell areas that include both an antimagic area and a normal area, but are not centered in the antimagic area, still function in the normal area. If the spell’s center is in the antimagic area, then the spell is suppressed.



So the AMF may cause a gap in the bolt, but the bolt will resume on the far side of the AMF and will "still function in the normal area".  That's pretty clear.

Now let's look at _Chain Lightning_.  You cast _Chain Lightning_ at a group of opponents, the primary target of which is on the far side of an AMF.  What happens?

According to the SRD (the same clip in fact), as long as the center of effect isn't in the AMF, the spell works normally.  You didn't try to create any spell effect inside the AMF area, nor did the point of origin land inside the AMF.  You're clean.

Now the idea that you can cast self-buffs while inside is odd, and highly debatable.  I've generally fallen on the side of the debate that says "Why not?" though.  The AMF doesn't say you can't cast while inside, you just cant have the target or the starting point of an area be within the field.

That sets a dangerous precedent however, making the AMF the highest form of _Globe of Invulnerability_, the one that stops all incoming spells, yet lets you cast spells from within with impunity.  Okay, okay, rays and cones won't work since the point of origin is you, and you're in the field, but you know what I mean.  If you could somehow approach the edge of the AMF then rays and cones would come back into play, since they begin at a corner of your square, and that corner could be out of or at the edge of the field.  However, since the AMF is always centered on the caster and has a 10 foot radius, you'd need to have a lot of Reach to pull that one off.

(For the record, the best version of the _Globe_ theme is a Cube of Force.  One setting stops any and all spells from entering the area.  It says nothing about spells going out.  )

The argument for or against allowing casting spells while inside the AMF really balances on a few key words: "used within..."  As in, 


			
				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.



When you cast a spell intended to "go off" outside the AMF, is that spell being "used within" the AMF?  Doesn't seem like it to me, but you already know which side of the balance my opinion falls on. 

Now the AMF description goes on to say that summoned creatures "wink out" while in the area of an AMF, but says that Golems and such operate normally.  Which is odd, since the creation of any Golem uses an Earth Elemental's spirit to give them life.  Does that mean that the writers overlooked an obscure detail, or is it an intentional exception?  I suspect that it's both.

In any case, I've digressed more than enough.  There's nothing to say or suggest that "Line of effect" is interrupted by AMF, and at least one example (_Lightning bolt, _where Area of Effect and Line of Effect are the same) that seems to break that argument.  The various _Ray_ spells would fall into that same category.  The "line of effect"  many be interrupted, but continues normally once past the AMF, because that's what happens to the "area of effect", and for those spells the two are the same.


----------



## Dandu (Jun 27, 2012)

Greenfield, what is your take on casting Wall of Force inside an AMF, since it is explicitly not suppressed by an AMF?


----------



## Greenfield (Jun 27, 2012)

Good question.

My view is that if an AMF encounters an existing _Prismatic Wall_ or  _Wall of Force_ (two barriers that are specifically impenetrable by all but a very short list of spells or effects), the _Wall_ spell prevails and blocks the AMF.

Attempting to cast such a spell into an AMF however would fail, as that would run afoul of the restriction on casting spells into such a field.

In short, "possession is nine points of the law" as the old saying goes.  Whoever got there first wins.

(Trivia note:  It isn't nine _tenths _of the law, but nine _points_.  The "Law" in question when the quote originated had fourteen points, so "possession" was the greater portion in the balance of things, but not an insurmountable advantage.  Thanks and credit to an old Business Law instructor.  )


----------



## Dandu (Jun 27, 2012)

Second question: What about a Prismatic Sphere, which seems to be a self-only buffing spell...


----------



## Greenfield (Jun 27, 2012)

_Prismatic Sphere_ as a buffing spell?  I've never heard it described that way.  It's a fortress or a jail cell or a shiny disco ball if you want to use it that way, but it doesn't buff stats or AC or anything else.

Although it isn't the same as the _Prismatic Wall_ (in that it isn't mentioned specifically in the AMF description), I tend to see it in the same light as the _Wall_ version:  If it was there first, it wins.  If the AMF was there first, there's a hole in the wall, at least until the AMF duration expires.


----------



## Dandu (Jun 27, 2012)

Sure, it doesn't boost AC, but flat out disallowing anything to pass through it has to count for something, right? 

Too bad Skip Williams won't allow me to start casting Prismatic Spheres in an AMF. Oh well.


----------



## dakuth (Jun 27, 2012)

Greenfield said:


> The rules also don't specify whether a club or axe works in an AMF.  They only mention swords.  The "lack of omission" argument lacks.



Magic items being suppressed is specifically mentioned. Casting fireballs, or any other spell THROUGH an AMF is not.


Greenfield said:


> What the spell does say is that magical items or effects are suppressed, not dispelled, and that any that leave the AMF (or the AMF moves away from) will resume.
> 
> So anything passing through can do so, they simply don't exist within the space of the AntiMagic field.
> 
> The fact is, neither the spell description, nor the description of Anti-Magic in general, ever mention anything resembling "line of effect".



Correct. Skip Williams, however, does and it DOES NOT CONFLICT with what is written in the AMF entry.


Greenfield said:


> And they do specifically say that the AMF doesn't dispel anything.
> 
> But let's pick an example other than _Fireball_.  The tiny bead can be seen as a "thing", and the rules are pretty clear that magic "things" can enter (and be suppressed) then leave again and resume normal function.



The bead is flavour. One of the important conditions for casting a spell is (this is 3.75, but I'm sure there is similar text in 3.5) "You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast."

AMF blocks LoE, as per Skip Williams, so you can't cast a Fireball through it. The bead doesn't come into it.

Again, I stress, the Core Rules - un-clarified - do not say one way or the other. In lieu of specifically saying it blocks LoE, I would err on the side of allowing it (and that is how I was originally playing.) It doesn't make a great deal of sense... but there you have it.

Once a *designer of the game I am playing* states otherwise though, that is RAI at least, and in my mind RAW too.



Greenfield said:


> Let's look instead at two spells:  _Lightning Bolt_ and _Chain Lightning_.
> 
> If you cast a Lightning Bolt through an AMF, you're looking at a "line of effect" that is also the area of effect.  Areas of effect are explicitly discussed in the AMF spell description.
> 
> So the AMF may cause a gap in the bolt, but the bolt will resume on the far side of the AMF and will "still function in the normal area".  That's pretty clear.




No that's wrong. It will go up to the AMF, then stop as it is blocked. AMF discusses how area effects that overlap with AMF don't reach into the AMF... what isn't made clear is that _this is because it blocks LoE._ More evidence that this was always the RAI. Fortunately for everyone, this is all cleared up when one of the designers clarifies the issue.



Greenfield said:


> Now let's look at _Chain Lightning_.  You cast _Chain Lightning_ at a group of opponents, the primary target of which is on the far side of an AMF.  What happens?



Fortunately, by clarifying the LoE situation this is trivial - the spell fails due to lack of LoE to the initial target. This would be the same as having a wall of force between you and an enemy and trying to cast _Chain Lighnting_ on them.


Greenfield said:


> According to the SRD (the same clip in fact), as long as the center of effect isn't in the AMF, the spell works normally.  You didn't try to create any spell effect inside the AMF area, nor did the point of origin land inside the AMF.  You're clean.



You're correct, except you're initial premise is wrong making your argument invalid.


Greenfield said:


> Now the idea that you can cast self-buffs while inside is odd, and highly debatable.  I've generally fallen on the side of the debate that says "Why not?" though.  The AMF doesn't say you can't cast while inside, you just cant have the target or the starting point of an area be within the field.



I agree. Skip Williams specifically says you always have LoE to yourself, and as earlier argued in this thread, I think there is a compelling argument that RAW doesn't say you can't, and RAI is that you can cast. The trick here, though, is *you can't cast buffs on other people because your LoE will be blocked*


Greenfield said:


> That sets a dangerous precedent however, making the AMF the highest form of _Globe of Invulnerability_, the one that stops all incoming spells, yet lets you cast spells from within with impunity.  Okay, okay, rays and cones won't work since the point of origin is you, and you're in the field, but you know what I mean.  If you could somehow approach the edge of the AMF then rays and cones would come back into play, since they begin at a corner of your square, and that corner could be out of or at the edge of the field.  However, since the AMF is always centered on the caster and has a 10 foot radius, you'd need to have a lot of Reach to pull that one off.



Now that is an interesting argument. Moving to the edge of a AMF field and casting out of it. This is covered IMO. This is similar to being ethereal, and standing inside a wall and trying to cast out of it. I would rule you have no LoE (or LoS for that matter) until you emerge - that is your token is in a square *outside* the wall. YMMV, but:

a|b

Where a and b are squares, and the | is a solid barrier. To me, it does not matter whether the | is a wall of force, the edge of a 10-foot wall (and (a) is ethereal,) or a is standing in a AMF... in all scenarios, (a) cannot cast until he gets to the other side of the barrier.



Greenfield said:


> (For the record, the best version of the _Globe_ theme is a Cube of Force.  One setting stops any and all spells from entering the area.  It says nothing about spells going out.  )
> 
> The argument for or against allowing casting spells while inside the AMF really balances on a few key words: "used within..."  As in,
> 
> When you cast a spell intended to "go off" outside the AMF, is that spell being "used within" the AMF?  Doesn't seem like it to me, but you already know which side of the balance my opinion falls on.



Honestly, by just adopting Skip William's official ruling, it makes everything 100% straight forward. If you cast a spell intended to "go off" outside the AMF... it fails. No LoE.


Greenfield said:


> Now the AMF description goes on to say that summoned creatures "wink out" while in the area of an AMF, but says that Golems and such operate normally.  Which is odd, since the creation of any Golem uses an Earth Elemental's spirit to give them life.  Does that mean that the writers overlooked an obscure detail, or is it an intentional exception?  I suspect that it's both.



It seems quite obvious to me that it is an intentional exception. A balance concession, I'd wager, but having never had to use it in a game I hadn't worried about it. I figured a golem is a big part of the owner's power (since it requires so much investment that could have been spent on other magical items) and having a AMF shut it down would be too powerful.


Greenfield said:


> In any case, I've digressed more than enough.  There's nothing to say or suggest that "Line of effect" is interrupted by AMF, and at least one example (_Lightning bolt, _where Area of Effect and Line of Effect are the same) that seems to break that argument.



There IS something to say. An official ruling from one of the game's designers! Perhaps what you meant to say is "the core rulebooks do not say" ... but "nothing to say" is wrong. Furthermore, lightning bolt DOES NOT break the argument as LoE blocks it! You're argument is "lightning bolt shoots through the AMF, therefore it doesn't block LoE" ........ but you first have to demonstrate that lightning bolt would shoot through the AMF! For that you'd need an official ruling or example that shows as much!


Greenfield said:


> The various _Ray_ spells would fall into that same category.  The "line of effect"  many be interrupted, but continues normally once past the AMF, because that's what happens to the "area of effect", and for those spells the two are the same.




As explained above, no, they would not. They stop at the AMF's barrier.


----------



## dakuth (Jun 27, 2012)

doubel post


----------



## dakuth (Jun 27, 2012)

Dandu said:


> Greenfield, what is your take on casting Wall of Force inside an AMF, since it is explicitly not suppressed by an AMF?



No, because you only have a LoE to yourself in a AMF, and you can't cast Wall on yourself


Dandu said:


> Second question: What about a Prismatic Sphere, which seems to be a self-only buffing spell...



A harder one, but still no. It is "centered on you", but not targeted to you. It is actually targeted to the square in which you stand... which you don't have LoE to in an AMF (you only have LoE to yourself.)


----------



## Greenfield (Jun 27, 2012)

dakuth said:


> No, because you only have a LoE to yourself in a AMF, and you can't cast Wall on yourself
> 
> A harder one, but still no. It is "centered on you", but not targeted to you. It is actually targeted to the square in which you stand... which you don't have LoE to in an AMF (you only have LoE to yourself.)



We were discussing the whole "Line of Effect" argument, which is part of what Dandu was quizzing me about.  

As you may have read, I disagree with Skip (and apparently you as well) that _Antimagic Field  _blocks Line of Effect.  Line of Effect isn't mentioned anywhere in the spell or condition  descriptions, so there's nothing to say that it's blocked by the AMF.  It interrupts it, which could possibly extend it (oddly enough), but doesn't block it.  The spell description and the general condition description are both pretty clear that magic effects that enter the zone are suppressed, not dispelled, and that once they leave they resume normal function.

But that does bring up some interesting possibilities.  Consider an _Antimagic Field_ that intersected with ( and possibly wrapped around) a stone wall.  If I cast a _Lightning Bolt_ through the AMF in the direction of that wall, the spell's area of effect (and line of effect) are interrupted by the AMF.  They don't exist in that area, but resume normally once they pass it.  Sort of like quantum tunneling. The stone wall would block the spell under most circumstance, but since it never actually hits the wall inside the AMF, it will resume normal course on the other side of it, which is also on the other side of the stone wall.

In effect, the AMF allows me to throw that spell through the stone wall.  How neat is that?


----------



## Greenfield (Jun 27, 2012)

Dakuth, I missed your longer post.  I just started reading it and it troubles me.

Much of your argument is that my examples, such as _Lightning Bolt_, are wrong because they contradict Skip Williams.  The problem is that they are 100% in compliance with the rules as written, and not simply because the rules fail to say something.  They specifically say that the area of effect does continue normally outside the AMF.

We've seen Skip be wrong before, so we know it can happen.  

You describe the bead in a _Fireball_ as "flavor".  It isn't.  It can be blocked or intercepted, and attack rolls have to be made with it under certain circumstances.  It's a thing, part of the spell, and helps define how it works.  Not just color text, but a functional part of how the spell works.

Your argument from there simply seems to say that Skip is right because he's right.  LOE is blocked because Skip says so, therefore any proofs or examples that run counter to that are wrong simply because they run counter to that.

That's not good enough.  The AOE/LOE of a _Lightning Bolt_ continues after the AMF.  Why?  Because the rules for AMF say so, and with all due respect to Mr. Williams, if/when he says it doesn't, he's wrong.

I read your a|b example and almost fell off my chair laughing.  By that reasoning a caster has to include himself in any cone or line spell, since you are in effect arguing that he can't cast starting at the boundary between his square and another, he has to be in the square he's casting into.  And equating an AMF to being on another plane (Ethereal) was almost as funny as having a stone wall that fits in the infinitely thin line between squares on the battle mat.

Like any DM, you are entitled to run your own game any way you like, as is Mr. Williams.  And while Mr. Williams is indeed one of the authors of the game, he is only one of the authors and not the sole authority.  The actual written rules are the rules, and while interpretation is not merely allowed but required, when an interpretation runs counter to what's actually written, the interpretation is the one that's wrong.


----------



## dakuth (Jun 28, 2012)

Greenfield said:


> We were discussing the whole "Line of Effect" argument, which is part of what Dandu was quizzing me about.
> 
> As you may have read, I disagree with Skip (and apparently you as well) that _Antimagic Field  _blocks Line of Effect.  Line of Effect isn't mentioned anywhere in the spell or condition  descriptions, so there's nothing to say that it's blocked by the AMF.  It interrupts it, which could possibly extend it (oddly enough), but doesn't block it.  The spell description and the general condition description are both pretty clear that magic effects that enter the zone are suppressed, not dispelled, and that once they leave they resume normal function.
> 
> ...




Actually I agree with Skip for two reasons:
1. He's one of the game's designers... so disagreeing with him basically says "I'm using Rule 0." Not a bad thing at all, but just the way it is. I try not to Rule 0 if I can (just a personal preference.)
2. AMF blocking LoE makes total sense to me. For example, it makes your quantum tunnelling lightning bolt very simple to adjudicate. It simply stops at the edge of the AMF.


----------



## dakuth (Jun 28, 2012)

sorry, double posted again


----------



## dakuth (Jun 28, 2012)

Greenfield said:


> Dakuth, I missed your longer post.  I just started reading it and it troubles me.
> 
> Much of your argument is that my examples, such as _Lightning Bolt_, are wrong because they contradict Skip Williams.  The problem is that they are 100% in compliance with the rules as written, and not simply because the rules fail to say something.  They specifically say that the area of effect does continue normally outside the AMF.



Correct. You're examples are wrong because the contradict Skip Williams. As you say below, you're welcome to rule otherwise but doing so is basically going against RAI (and IMO RAW.) Not that that's really bad thing, but it is what it is.


Greenfield said:


> We've seen Skip be wrong before, so we know it can happen.



Indeed. He is only human. I've seen no evidence that he is in this case, though.


Greenfield said:


> You describe the bead in a _Fireball_ as "flavor".  It isn't.  It can be blocked or intercepted, and attack rolls have to be made with it under certain circumstances.  It's a thing, part of the spell, and helps define how it works.  Not just color text, but a functional part of how the spell works.



You'd have to show me some evidence of that. There's nothing in the rules that I've ever read that would ever require you to make attacks rolls, or block the bead (over and above LoE which blocks nearly all spells.)


Greenfield said:


> Your argument from there simply seems to say that Skip is right because he's right.  LOE is blocked because Skip says so, therefore any proofs or examples that run counter to that are wrong simply because they run counter to that.



Essentially yes. So the onus is now on you to prove otherwise - since he IS an authority on the matter. (one way, for example, to prove him wrong would be to show an authority contradicting him, then determining which authority has higher precedence.)


Greenfield said:


> That's not good enough.  The AOE/LOE of a _Lightning Bolt_ continues after the AMF.  Why?  Because the rules for AMF say so, and with all due respect to Mr. Williams, if/when he says it doesn't, he's wrong.



No. The rules for AMF *do not say that at all*. I have asked you to quote it, and you haven't. Why? Because they're not there.

As written, they do imply it almost entirely because the spell does not explicitly say that it blocks LoE. This leaves many people scratching their heads. Why would AMF suppress a spell like that, then let it continue? Why can you simply land a fireball on the other side of a AMF? Do we have to take into account that it passes through? Summoned creatures have to pause in there... do spells? etc. etc. etc.

Some clarity would be nice.

What's this? A quote from one of the designers clarifying!? OMG. How helpful. What does he say? Oh right, blocks LoE. That makes *total* sense.


Greenfield said:


> I read your a|b example and almost fell off my chair laughing.  By that reasoning a caster has to include himself in any cone or line spell, since you are in effect arguing that he can't cast starting at the boundary between his square and another, he has to be in the square he's casting into.



I'm glad you're so amused by basic logic. You must be a very jolly fellow. For any cone or line spell, you need to have LoE from yourself, to any point in the area.

By YOUR logic, that means you could cast a line or cone spell _through a closed door_



Greenfield said:


> And equating an AMF to being on another plane (Ethereal) was almost as funny as having a stone wall that fits in the infinitely thin line between squares on the battle mat.




You sure are easily amused. Do you find that not many people get your humour?



Greenfield said:


> Like any DM, you are entitled to run your own game any way you like, as is Mr. Williams.  And while Mr. Williams is indeed one of the authors of the game, he is only one of the authors and not the sole authority.  The actual written rules are the rules, and while interpretation is not merely allowed but required, when an interpretation runs counter to what's actually written, the interpretation is the one that's wrong.




As I said above. You are welcome to run it how you like as well. I merely posted here because I thought others who stumble on this thread might like some official clarification on the matter. And while Mr. Williams is not the only authority on the matter - until one *actually contradicts him* it's a fair statement to say the Rules As Intended is that AntiMagic Field blocks Line of Effect.

(Personally I'd say it's Rules As Written, but I could concede a point of disagreement with that.)


----------



## Greenfield (Jun 28, 2012)

dakuth said:


> Indeed. He is only human. I've seen no evidence that he is in this case, though.



Did you somehow miss my example of the _Lightning Bolt_, that the spell description specifically says would continue after the AMF?


> You'd have to show me some evidence of that. There's nothing in the rules that I've ever read that would ever require you to make attacks rolls, or block the bead (over and above LoE which blocks nearly all spells.)



Look in the spell description itself...


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Fireball
> Evocation [Fire]
> Level: Sor/Wiz 3
> Components: V, S, M
> ...



Ranged Touch attack roll is called for when targeting through a narrow opening, and unlike just about any other spell, this one can go off in the wrong spot if something intercepts the bead.


> Essentially yes. So the onus is now on you to prove otherwise - since he IS an authority on the matter. (one way, for example, to prove him wrong would be to show an authority contradicting him, then determining which authority has higher precedence.)



Well, at least you admit to the circular logic.

Tell me, would the written word of all the authors, collectively, qualify?  That would, of course, be the rules as written, which specifically state that areas of effect which overlap the AMF aren't blocked or dispelled, but continue normally outside the AMF area.  That isn't an interpretation nor any form of "reading between the lines", it isn't a "This is what they meant to say" thing, it's right there in black and white.  I've referred to that about a dozen times in the _Lightning Bolt_ argument, and your only response has been to simply say that it doesn't.  


> No. The rules for AMF *do not say that at all*. I have asked you to quote it, and you haven't. Why? Because they're not there.



Did you know that the topic of Antimagic is discussed in two places?  The spell description is one, obviously, but there is a separate section under "Special Abilities".  I have included this previously (I think), but in case I didn't I'll do so again:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> ANTIMAGIC
> An antimagic field spell or effect cancels magic altogether. An antimagic effect has the following powers and characteristics.
> • No supernatural ability, spell-like ability, or spell works in an area of antimagic (but extraordinary abilities still work).
> • Antimagic does not dispel magic; it suppresses it. Once a magical effect is no longer affected by the antimagic (the antimagic fades, the center of the effect moves away, and so on), the magic returns. Spells that still have part of their duration left begin functioning again, magic items are once again useful, and so forth.
> ...



Perhaps that's why you missed it.  


> Some clarity would be nice.



And I hope I've provided some.



> By YOUR logic, that means you could cast a line or cone spell _through a closed door_



Well, if the closed door were infinitely thin...  But no, I never said you could cast through a solid object (except for that odd circumstance I described with an AMF covering a wall).  I just said that cone and line effects start at the corner of the caster's square and begin their effect in the next square over.  Not exactly controversial, since that's exactly what the rules say.  And if that square isn't in the AMF then the spell should work normally.  Again, not exactly controversial, since again it's what the rules say.


> You sure are easily amused. Do you find that not many people get your humour?



Okay, I think I need to apologize for my demeanor in this conversation.  I've been putting you down for disagreeing with me, and that's not right.  I'll try to contain my sarcasm.  I'm sorry, and I'll try to do better.

That being said, being in an AMF is nothing like being on another plane.  To start with, the AMF doesn't block line of sight, as you pointed out would happen with _Etherealness_.  Whether or not it blocks LOE is, of course, what we're debating, and isn't a "given" for either side.  


> As I said above. You are welcome to run it how you like as well. I merely posted here because I thought others who stumble on this thread might like some official clarification on the matter. And while Mr. Williams is not the only authority on the matter - until one *actually contradicts him* it's a fair statement to say the Rules As Intended is that AntiMagic Field blocks Line of Effect.
> 
> (Personally I'd say it's Rules As Written, but I could concede a point of disagreement with that.)



Agreed, we're both free to run it as we see fit.

Hopefully, by pointing out the second section discussing Anitimagic, I've shown you the "written" part of "Rules as written".


----------



## Dandu (Jun 28, 2012)

> Okay, I think I need to apologize for my demeanor in this conversation. I've been putting you down for disagreeing with me, and that's not right. I'll try to contain my sarcasm. I'm sorry, and I'll try to do better.



You should leave that sort of behavior to the professionals.


----------



## dakuth (Jun 28, 2012)

I'll keep my reply brief, because I think this debate has basically run its course.



Greenfield said:


> Did you somehow miss my example of the _Lightning Bolt_, that the spell description specifically says would continue after the AMF?



That was just your interpretation of the rules, though, correct? So not evidence of what they actually intended.


Greenfield said:


> Look in the spell description itself...



I'll concede fireball's bead sometimes has a point. It's a bit unique in that way. It does throw a spanner into the AMF since it blocks LoE, but is not a solid barrier. That is entirely open to interpretation, but I'd rule no LoE so you can't target any spell through the AMF. (then a player argues that it's not a solid barrier.. and you CAN target where you don't have LoE - it just fails (e.g. if you don't REALISE you don't have LoE) etc. etc. I concede this is one of those cases that aren't clear-cut, and I blame the bead entry in fireball, which I'd wager was originally intended to be flavour and has been conflated.)


Greenfield said:


> Well, at least you admit to the circular logic.



.... no. The logic is: Skip Williams is an authority, and you are not. Therefore, if what you says contradicts him - you are wrong. Yes, you are wrong because Skip says so... but that's certainly not circular. It goes one direction only.


Greenfield said:


> Tell me, would the written word of all the authors, collectively, qualify?  That would, of course, be the rules as written, which specifically state that areas of effect which overlap the AMF aren't blocked or dispelled, but continue normally outside the AMF area.  That isn't an interpretation nor any form of "reading between the lines", it isn't a "This is what they meant to say" thing, it's right there in black and white.  I've referred to that about a dozen times in the _Lightning Bolt_ argument, and your only response has been to simply say that it doesn't.



Yes indeedy, that would quality perfectly - and exactly what I'm looking for. And I can simply say that it doesn't... the onus is on the one making the positive claim. If you say the rules are there, you need to quote them - if you're talking about what you quote below, I'll talk about that there.


Greenfield said:


> Did you know that the topic of Antimagic is discussed in two places?  The spell description is one, obviously, but there is a separate section under "Special Abilities".  I have included this previously (I think), but in case I didn't I'll do so again:
> 
> Perhaps that's why you missed it.



No. I didn't miss it. What you describe there works exactly like LoE. The only difference is if you interpret that as NOT blocking LoE (which admittedly you could, because it's not exactly clear,) you get weird quantum tunnelling lightning bolt effects.


Greenfield said:


> And I hope I've provided some.



Alas, no. But one of the designers did.


Greenfield said:


> Well, if the closed door were infinitely thin...  I just said that cone and line effects start at the corner of the caster's square and begin their effect in the next square over.



And if you don't take into account LoE / LoS rules, then you could cast through a solid object. Anyway. I won't bother getting into this bit. Its a minor tangent.


Greenfield said:


> That being said, being in an AMF is nothing like being on another plane.
> Agreed, we're both free to run it as we see fit.



I only mentioned etherealness so someone could be standing INSIDE a wall. It could have been some other spell that lets you stand inside a solid object (I originally thought of _passwall_ ... but it actually opens a passage.) Being on another plane had nothing to do with it. 

Essentially what I was doing was finding another scenario where you could be standing *inside* an area that entirely blocks LoE. A thick, solid wall does this. There are a number of ways of being inside a wall (though now I think about it, etherealness is the only one that immediately comes to mind.) If you were inside a wall, but right on the edge - would you allow a player to cast out? I would not. Mostly, this is for balance reasons (so you can't stand in a wall with total cover, no LoE in, but perfect LoE out) - but also I believe the scenario is covered by saying you have no LoE. LoE from SRD says "hole of at least 1 square foot" is required for it to not block LoE ... I don't think standing inside a LoE blocking effect (solid wall, or AMF if you were to agree with me) would qualify. 

YMMV in this regard - I'm just saying how I would adjudicate, and why, in case anyone is tossing up options for their own game.



Greenfield said:


> Hopefully, by pointing out the second section discussing Anitimagic, I've shown you the "written" part of "Rules as written".




I disagree with your conclusions, and I was aware, but at the end of the day I think it's clear where we both stand.

(Sorry I didn't keep it as brief as I planned.)


----------



## Deset Gled (Jun 28, 2012)

dakuth said:


> Since he's one of the 3e designers, pulling it out of a bag of holding makes it pretty much RAW and/or RAI.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Regardless of my opinion on AMF (for the record, I'm of the opinion that non-instantaneous casting within the AMF is allowed but temporarily suppressed, instantaneous spells fail, and LoE is blocked), I completely disagree with your reasoning here.  Mainly because you seem to be using the terms RAW and RAI interchangeably when it comes to Skip's writing.

RAW and RAI are two completely different things.  If I intend to paint a picture of a square, but the paint ends up in the shape of a circle, no amount of intent in the world changes the circle into a square.  Likewise, if a game designer writes "Barbarians have a d12 hit die" but later states in an interview "I meant for Barbarians to have a d20 hit die", his opinion isn't worth anything until there is an errata to actually change the appropriate rules text.

Second, RAI by one designer is only relatively meaningful. There was an entire company behind the game, including a team of designers, team of editors, and a team of executives.  The intent of one designer is interesting and certainly worth discussion, but is in no way to be taken as the intent of everyone involved.

Third, intent can change over time.  Skip may intend for AMF to block LoE now, but there's no way to know what his intent was before.  In fact, Skip has been known to change and even completely reverse rules decisions he made in FAQ and Sage Advice.

What this boils down to is that an argument based on authority of a game designer is meaningless in a RAW argument (unless, of course, the designer is presenting an argument based on logical analysis).  Just because one designer decides to house rule something doesn't mean everyone else in the world has to follow the same house rule.  Designers can use "Rule 0", too, and it doesn't change what's written the books and errata.  When a designer wants to speak _ex cathedra_, he must do so in errata.  Anything else is just musings and opinions, and should (only) be valued as such.


----------



## dakuth (Jun 28, 2012)

Seems fair enough.

For my money, I think it counts as RAI - until such a time as something contradictory comes along.

You've convinced me it's not RAW though (something I was a little on the fence about.)


----------



## Greenfield (Jun 28, 2012)

dakuth said:


> That was just your interpretation of the rules, though, correct? So not evidence of what they actually intended.



It was a direct reading of the text in the rules.  Area of effect continues normally outside the AMF.  It's right there in black and white.  Not an interpretation, the actual rules.

In the interest of brevity I'll paraphrase some of what you're saying...

Regarding fireball's bead, you agree that it "sometimes has a point" (same as being a "thing"?)  But you conclude that I'm wrong because you're right.  Not what I'd consider a well reasoned proof, but it's what we have.

Your next argument is that since I'm not Skip Williams, I'm wrong, even when quoting the exact text of the rules.


> Yes indeedy, that would quality perfectly - and exactly what I'm looking for. And I can simply say that it doesn't... the onus is on the one making the positive claim. If you say the rules are there, you need to quote them...



I have, several times.  You've dismissed, rather than disproven.


> No. I didn't miss it. What you describe there works exactly like LoE. The only difference is if you interpret that as NOT blocking LoE (which admittedly you could, because it's not exactly clear,) you get weird quantum tunnelling lightning bolt effects.



So the problem is that if I'm right, then you're wrong, and that isn't possible?

The part I highlighted says exactly what I've been saying, that AOE continues normally outside of the AMF.  It's not an opinion, an interpretation, or some argument for "Rules as intended".  It's an exact quote from the rules.  You appear to be dismissing the exact text of the rules, and I honestly don't understand how you can do that in a discussion like this.  We are supposed to be discussing the rules, aren't we?


> I only mentioned etherealness so someone could be standing INSIDE a wall. It could have been some other spell that lets you stand inside a solid object (I originally thought of _passwall_ ... but it actually opens a passage.) Being on another plane had nothing to do with it.



I see, a simple oversight, but a bit disengenuos, since _Etherealness_ lys down specific limits on casting spells back to the material plane.  As in, you pretty much can't, whether you're inside the object or not.

As an aside, _Meld Into Stone_ may be the spell you're looking for, though I don't know off hand if it allows any spell casting while inside the stone.

Your example was chosen as one that specifically blocks LOE, and was used as an argument to support that AMF blocks LOE.  To many flaws in there to bother enumerating.  Suffice it to say that it feels like you're arguing in bad faith.

As for where we stand:  Yes, I think we both know.  I think I'm reading the rules exactly as written, with no spin, twist, or contortions of word, phrase or logic.

By the way, I'd like to apologize again for my bad manners.  I sometimes get that way when I'm frustrated, and this has been a very frustrating exchange.  I kept pointing to the rules and you kept saying that they weren't there.

Even so, it doesn't excuse anything, and I really will try to do better in our future exchanges.

Oh, and I've had a change of heart on one point.  Sadly it's one we both agreed on:  That a caster can cast spells affecting themselves while in an AMF.  I said that I thought it was all right.

After reading the rules over and over again as we went through this, I realized that they pretty clearly say no.  And it has nothing to do with LOE.  It has to do with targeting a spell with a starting point inside an AMF.  The rules say that spells with a "starting point" inside the AMF are completely canceled, and even if the area is "Creature touched", it still counts.  Whatever else we may disagree about, I hop we can agree that spells targeted into an AMF don't work.


----------



## dakuth (Jun 28, 2012)

It's a shame what is no doubt a useful thread is degenerating like this. But I just can't help myself.


Greenfield said:


> In the interest of brevity I'll paraphrase some of what you're saying...
> 
> Regarding fireball's bead, you agree that it "sometimes has a point" (same as being a "thing"?)  But you conclude that I'm wrong because you're right.  Not what I'd consider a well reasoned proof, but it's what we have.




um. No. It's there for all to read, above, so I won't go into it further.



Greenfield said:


> Your next argument is that since I'm not Skip Williams, I'm wrong, even when quoting the exact text of the rules.



That is correct - however you could have been right, if only you'd quoted a rule that showed you were right. You did not.


Greenfield said:


> I have, several times.  You've dismissed, rather than disproven.



I don't need to disprove, if you don't provide any evidence. You keep claiming that the rules clearly say ("in black and white") that spells pass right through AMF. Then you go ahead and quote a section of rules... that says nothing of the sort. I have no idea why you think you have.


Greenfield said:


> So the problem is that if I'm right, then you're wrong, and that isn't possible?



uh...


Greenfield said:


> The part I highlighted says exactly what I've been saying, that AOE continues normally outside of the AMF.  It's not an opinion, an interpretation, or some argument for "Rules as intended".  It's an exact quote from the rules.



uh... no... it's not. Putting aside the fact you have no exact quoting at all ... let's say you meant something like "What I've been saying is exactly what the rules are saying."

For that to be true, what you'd need is a quote like the following:
"For example, if a _lightning bolt_ is cast through an _antimagic field_ it would have no effect on targets inside the AMF, but would continue on and affect targets on the side."

Or perhaps a little addition to the AM rules when talking about overlapping areas "this does not block line of effect."

Without that, it certainly is open to interpretation (although see concession below, where I think it is fair to say it does not block LoE without further clarification.) The point is: If a game designer is to come out and say "antimagic field blocks LoE", unless you can quote a section of the rules that explicitly proves it does not (e.g. above two quotes) - it is SURELY RAI.



Greenfield said:


> You appear to be dismissing the exact text of the rules, and I honestly don't understand how you can do that in a discussion like this.  We are supposed to be discussing the rules, aren't we?



uh... Let's just grab the text of rules, shall we? You've been so kind as to quote them... (makes me wonder why you think something is there, when it is not.)



> • Spell areas that include both an antimagic area and a normal area, but are not centered in the antimagic area, still function in the normal area. If the spell’s center is in the antimagic area, then the spell is suppressed.



hrm. Funny. Nothing there about lightning bolts passing through. Nothing there about being able to cast through AMF.

Now, I did concede that it is not entirely clear. You *could* interpret it to mean that if a thin spell area was laid down over a thin AMF, a portion is "snipped" out. This doesn't make *any* sense, logically, but it is magic and anything could happen.

The other, more sane, way to read it is that it blocks LoE.

*Having said that* (and here's a big concession you can take if you like) those rules, right there, imply more strongly that it WOULD continue on. It's certainly not "black and white." You certainly haven't provided any rule quotation that shows that lightning bolts definitely pass through, so therefore AMF definitely works like that. (That's circular logic, btw. 'I believe AM rules allow lightning bolt to pass through. I believe lightning bolts pass through, therefore the AM rules are right.')

So the rules are unclear, and the default reading seems to be insane. What is one to do? Wouldn't the logical solution be to look for a ruling by someone with authority? An errata, a version update, a statement from the designers, a statement from a single designer.... ?? Anything?

Yes. And we have that. And I have being bringing it up every. single. post.



Greenfield said:


> I see, a simple oversight, but a bit disengenuos, since _Etherealness_ lys down specific limits on casting spells back to the material plane.  As in, you pretty much can't, whether you're inside the object or not.
> ...
> Your example was chosen as one that specifically blocks LOE, and was used as an argument to support that AMF blocks LOE.  To many flaws in there to bother enumerating.  Suffice it to say that it feels like you're arguing in bad faith.



Disingenuous is pretty unfair. I clearly gave three similar scenarios. All these scenarios had one thing in common - a solid barrier between a and b.


Greenfield said:


> As an aside, _Meld Into Stone_ may be the spell you're looking for, though I don't know off hand if it allows any spell casting while inside the stone.



It was actually _Passwall_ - but it wasn't until later in the debate I realised it opened an entire passage. I'm sure there must be other ways to stand in a solid wall though.


Greenfield said:


> As for where we stand:  Yes, I think we both know.  I think I'm reading the rules exactly as written, with no spin, twist, or contortions of word, phrase or logic.



A point we obviously disagree on. And I believe my reading is supported by one of the game designer's clarification.


Greenfield said:


> By the way, I'd like to apologize again for my bad manners.  I sometimes get that way when I'm frustrated, and this has been a very frustrating exchange.  I kept pointing to the rules and you kept saying that they weren't there.
> 
> Even so, it doesn't excuse anything, and I really will try to do better in our future exchanges.



I've also found it frustrating for basically the same reasons - I've tried to keep it civil (and I don't think you strayed too far outside that TBH) but I may have not always been successful. If I have not, please accept my apologies.


Greenfield said:


> Oh, and I've had a change of heart on one point.  Sadly it's one we both agreed on:  That a caster can cast spells affecting themselves while in an AMF.  I said that I thought it was all right.
> 
> After reading the rules over and over again as we went through this, I realized that they pretty clearly say no.  And it has nothing to do with LOE.  It has to do with targeting a spell with a starting point inside an AMF.  The rules say that spells with a "starting point" inside the AMF are completely canceled, and even if the area is "Creature touched", it still counts.  Whatever else we may disagree about, I hop we can agree that spells targeted into an AMF don't work.




ah ha. I'm loathe to start another one but food for thought: Perhaps only AoE spells have a "point of origin"? (Which is what I assume you mean by "starting point.")


----------



## Greenfield (Jun 28, 2012)

I'll keep it brief:  


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> • Spell areas that include both an antimagic area and a normal area, but  are not centered in the antimagic area, still function in the normal  area. If the spell’s center is in the antimagic area, then the spell is  suppressed.



So if the _Lightning Bolt_ area is 100 feet long (just to pick a number), and 20 feet of that are in an AMF, then the spell should "still function in the normal area".  Per the rules, in black and white, an exact quote.

Not an opinion, interpretation, or twist of wording, phrasing or logic.  That is *EXACTLY* what it says.  The only part missing from the rules is the _Lightning Bolt_ specific example.

From your side, the only part missing from the rules is your entire position.  There is absolutely nothing in the written rules to say that an AMF blocks Line of effect.  (If I'm mistaken, then please include the appropriate section of the SRD, as I have done.)

To repeat, the spell that partially includes an AMF will still function  normally over the rest of its area unless the spell is centered in the  AMF.

Please explain how this reading is wrong, preferably by doing something other than saying "Because LOE is blocked by the AMF".  

Every example I've provided to disprove the LOE blockage *OPINION* has been dismissed _BECAUSE_ it disproves the LOE blockage opinion.  That's a perfect example of arguing in bad faith.

What's funny to me (no sarcasm or put-down here) is that you have a problem with "quantum tunneling" of a _Lightning Bolt_ (an effect that really exists and is 100% appropriate for a charged particle stream entering an area where it cannot exist in its current state), but can accept magical lightning.  I normally hate attempts to argue physics in a magical world, but the parallel was just too good.

<edit>Yes, I can see the argument that AOE spells have a "point of origin".  However, AMF specifically says that casting spells into an AMF automatically fails.  Pretty clear, over all.</edit>


----------



## Dandu (Jun 29, 2012)

Greenfield, you foolish fool! You have forgotten that the Lightening Bolt has a point of origin that starts from the caster!



> You release a powerful stroke of electrical energy that deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to each creature within its area. *The bolt begins at your fingertips.*




The written fluff of the spell _clearly_ indicates that travels from the caster onwards, and can be used to _irrefutably_ justify an AMF suppressing it if Lightning Bolt travels through its space, just like an AMF would suppress Shout or Fireball!


----------



## dakuth (Jun 29, 2012)

Greenfield said:


> I'll keep it brief:
> 
> So if the _Lightning Bolt_ area is 100 feet long (just to pick a number), and 20 feet of that are in an AMF, then the spell should "still function in the normal area".  Per the rules, in black and white, an exact quote.
> 
> ...



What I am, and have been, saying is this:
The rules as written are a head-scratcher. They don't make a great deal of sense, exactly because they seem to imply the effects you're describing. Due to the head-scratching nature, it is very fair to say "they're not clear"

So when a designer steps in, and clarifies the rules by saying "AMF blocks LoE", then yes AMF *does block LoE*. Every example you have given are not proving *anything*. They are the EFFECTS of what *would* happen if AMF did not block LoE. Since Skip Williams has said AMF blocks LoE you need to do one of two things to refute it:
1) Show a rule in the books that refutes it. No, the AMF rules do not refute it. AMF blocking LoE *does not contradict the written rules at all.*
2) Show a another designer, or collaboration of designers contradicting Mr. William's statement.

This is really the circle we've been running around for about 2 pages now. I say "show me this" you say "the rules do" I say "no they don't" and away we go again. Although I hate the cliche' it may be time to say we agree to disagree on "the rules do".


Greenfield said:


> What's funny to me (no sarcasm or put-down here) is that you have a problem with "quantum tunneling" of a _Lightning Bolt_ (an effect that really exists and is 100% appropriate for a charged particle stream entering an area where it cannot exist in its current state), but can accept magical lightning.  I normally hate attempts to argue physics in a magical world, but the parallel was just too good.



Yes indeedy, quantum tunnelling is a real phenomenon (or so I'm told by people in the know) but go ahead and push on a wall and wait for the quantum tunnelling to get you through. I heard it would take significantly longer than the universe has to live for you to have a reasonable chance of that occurring.

When we throw things against solid barriers (or lightning bolts for that matter with... I dunno, a tesla gun/coil/thingo) we rightly predict it will not pass through. Passing through would be "weird" regardless of why (quantum tunnelling or antimagic fields.)


Greenfield said:


> <edit>Yes, I can see the argument that AOE spells have a "point of origin".  However, AMF specifically says that casting spells into an AMF automatically fails.  Pretty clear, over all.</edit>


----------



## Greenfield (Jun 29, 2012)

Dandu said:


> Greenfield, you foolish fool! You have forgotten that the Lightening Bolt has a point of origin that starts from the caster!
> 
> The written fluff of the spell _clearly_ indicates that travels from the caster onwards, and can be used to _irrefutably_ justify an AMF suppressing it if Lightning Bolt travels through its space, just like an AMF would suppress Shout or Fireball!



Ah, how could I have overlooked such a basic argument?

Oh, wait a minute, I didn't!  That was my _Lightning Bolt_ argument in a nutshell.  The area of the spell is a Line, starting at the caster.  Where it overlays with an AMF the spell is suppressed (but not cancelled or dispelled), but for the rest of the area it works normally, exactly as the rules say it will.

<Edit>To expand:  Let's look at your _Fireball _reference.  AMF is a 10 foot radius.  _Fireball_ is a 20 foot radius.  So I drop a _Fireball_ just outside the AMF.  By the rules, it goes off (it wasn't centered inside the AMF).  That part isn't in question.

Does the _Fireball_ cover the area not included in the AMF?  Think of two circles, one half the size of the other, and inside the larger one.  By the rules, the entire area of that larger circle is the _Fireball_, and the inside of the smaller circle is left untouched because the AMF suppressed the _Fireball_ in that area.  Note that the rules never say "blocked" or "dispelled".  Within the AMF, no flames.  Outside the AMF, flames.  That's what the rules say, in black and white, and that's what I'm arguing.</EDIT>


----------



## Dandu (Jun 29, 2012)

_BUT THAT"S NOT WHAT SKIP WILLIAM SAYS!!!one!_


----------



## Greenfield (Jun 29, 2012)

dakuth said:


> What I am, and have been, saying is this:
> The rules as written are a head-scratcher. They don't make a great deal of sense, exactly because they seem to imply the effects you're describing. Due to the head-scratching nature, it is very fair to say "they're not clear"



So, because the rules say something, they're a head scratcher?  (Note, they don't "imply" anything, they come right out and say it.)

That's actually where you lose me.  I've done cut-and-paste straight from the SRD several times, and you even repeated the pertinent section, all the while claiming that I haven't quoted anything.  

When you finally acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, my posts weren't a digitally enhanced hallucination, that I really did take quotes straight from the SRD, you asked me if my position was an interpretation.  Never mind the fact that I had said, repeatedly, that it wasn't.

So rather than slam my head into the stone wall of your intransigence, I'll simply ask (again):  Show me anywhere in the rules where it says that AMF blocks Line of Effect.  (Noting that Skip Williams' *opinion* is not the rules.)

Read the section we've both quoted regarding areas that include an AMF, and explain to me how that can be read any other way than to say that the spell operates normally in the area outside the AMF.  

Explain to me how the section in question is unclear.  What's unclear about it?  Here, I'll include it again.


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> • Spell areas that include both an antimagic area and a normal area, but   are not centered in the antimagic area, still function in the normal   area. If the spell’s center is in the antimagic area, then the spell is   suppressed.



Please point to the part that isn't clear, that brings into question (on any level) whether a spell will function normally in any part of its area that isn't inside the AMF.  Quote the exact text please.


> So when a designer steps in, and clarifies the rules by saying "AMF blocks LoE"...



When a designer steps in and *contradicts* the rules by saying "AMF blocks LOE"...

Wouldn't that be a better way of phrasing that?  His expressed *opinion* runs contrary to what is written in the rules, doesn't it?


> 1) Show a rule in the books that refutes it. No, the AMF rules do not refute it. AMF blocking LoE *does not contradict the written rules at all.*
> 2) Show a another designer, or collaboration of designers contradicting Mr. William's statement.



In answer to question 1:  Please see pretty much every previous argument I have made, or take a moment and read the bloody rules!  AMF suppresses spells in its area, and only in its area.  It doesn't block or suppress them outside of its area, and there's nothing in there to even hint at a suggestion that it would.  In fact, it says very clearly that it won't.

In answer to question 2:  I have cited the written works of all the authors combined (including Mr. Williams.).  They say that when an area of effect includes an AMF, the spell functions normally outside the AMF, unless the spell is centered inside the AMF.


> This is really the circle we've been running around for about 2 pages now. I say "show me this" you say "the rules do" I say "no they don't" and away we go again. Although I hate the cliche' it may be time to say we agree to disagree on "the rules do".



I agree.  I quote the exact rules, even tell you where to find them, and then you deny that I've quoted anything.  I've presented examples, based on those rules, to show how LOE isn't blocked, and you dismiss them specifically *because* they show that LOE isn't blocked.

Great way to "win" an argument, I suppose.  Just presume that you're right and that anything that shows otherwise doesn't exist.

You've mounted exactly zero in terms of counter arguments, other than to cite Mr. Williams over and over again.  And, as you've already admitted, Skip gets it wrong sometimes, giving opinions and examples that directly contradict the published rules.  That kind of shows that he isn't an infallible expert on the game.  

To be fair, the sheer volume of the rules and the collective nature of the work would make it hard for anyone to recall the letter of every rule.  Some parts of the book contradict themselves (table v text most of the time).

But if Skip Williams said, "In D&D, 2+2=5", the fact that he's an author doesn't make him a mathematician.  


> Yes indeedy, quantum tunnelling is a real phenomenon (or so I'm told by people in the know) but go ahead and push on a wall and wait for the quantum tunnelling to get you through. I heard it would take significantly longer than the universe has to live for you to have a reasonable chance of that occurring.



Quantum tunneling applies on the subatomic level, involving charged particles, not your hand against a wall.  And in fact they have caused an electron stream to tunnel a bit over 10 yards (if memory serves me correctly), and yes, they erected barriers in the "forbidden zone" to prove that the stream had bypassed that area.

And it didn't take anything like a cosmic time frame for it to happen in, either. 


> When we throw things against solid barriers (or lightning bolts for that matter with... I dunno, a tesla gun/coil/thingo) we rightly predict it will not pass through. Passing through would be "weird" regardless of why (quantum tunnelling or antimagic fields.)



Agreed.  It would take a special condition that said that the charged particles can't exist in their current state in the area of that solid barrier.  

By the way, the AMF essentially says that the "charged particles" of the _Lightning Bolt_ can't exist within it's area in their current (magical) state.

But since physics (even delightfully weird physics like quantum effects) really have no place in a discussion of a magical fantasy game, I agree with you:  Better to stop that part now.


----------



## Dandu (Jun 29, 2012)

The following post may be useful for the conversation.

The US Constitution is a document which lays the legal foundations of my nation. There were many parties involved in the drafting of this document. After the Constitution was ratified, the government had to interpret the Constitution - and naturally there were many disagreements on what was and was not permissible according to the Constitution, even among the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson was famous for his long feud with John Adams, for instance.

Now, just because Thomas Jefferson says that the Constitution allows him to purchase the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon did not necessarily mean that it did in fact allow him to do so - and just because John Adams thought that the Alien and Sedition acts were legal did not make it legal. Interpreting the Constitution falls under the purview of the Supreme Court.

Bottom line is, one man's opinion means diddly unless he can back it up with a well reasoned argument.


----------



## nogray (Jun 29, 2012)

*Mostly agreeing with Greenfield*

The rules for antimagic effects pretty clearly align with most of what [MENTION=6669384]Greenfield[/MENTION] is saying.

Skip's statement that, "antimagic fields block line of effect," directly conflicts with the rules for antimagic quoted from the SRD (and the corresponding text in the DMG on page 290) that states, "spell areas that include both an antimagic area and a normal area, but are not centered in the antimagic area, still function in the normal area." This is (or should be) self-evident for many configurations of various lines, bursts, emanations, and spreads that include the area of an antimagic zone of some sort.


```
Key:
Each symbol = 5-ft-square
A = area of Antimagic
X = area of effect
O = area that, if Skip is right, line of effect is blocked
C = area where Skip's rule would block one, two, or three corners

Cone of Cold (60 ft cone-shaped burst) intersecting an Antimagic Field spell:

 X X X X X X X X X X X X
 X X X X A A C C C C C
 X X X A A A A O O O O
 X X X A A A A O O O
 X X X C A A O O O O
 X X X C C O O O O
 X X X X C C O O O
 X X X X X C C O
 X X X X X C C
 X X X X X
 X X X
 X
```

Statements I hope we can all agree on:

The X, A, C, and O squares, above, are all "in the normal area" for a properly oriented Cone of Cold.
The spell as cast includes, "both an antimagic area and a normal area."
The X, O, and C squares are _not_ in the antimagic area.
The Cone of Cold is _not_ "centered in the antimagic area."
The X squares are definitely affected by the cone of cold.
The A squares suppress the cone of cold, so they aren't affected.
Looking at the statements above and the rule quoted from the SRD and DMG, I can only conclude that the C and O squares are also affected normally by the Cone of Cold. Here is the breakdown:

"Spell areas that include both an antimagic area (the A squares) and a normal area (the X, O, and C squares), but are not centered in the antimagic area (ours is in the top left corner of the top left X, so we are clear), still function in the normal area (those X, O, and C squares)."

If Skip were correct, then that sentence can not be followed. The O and C squares would be blocked (or in the case of the C squares, some level of cover would apply), and the spell would not "still function in the normal area."

Where I disagree with Greenfield is that "tunneling" is possible. The way I see it, any object solid enough to normally block the line of effect for the attack (or other) spell would also block the line of effect for the antimagic field's emanation. That means (to me) that the other spell would come back into effect and try to damage (or otherwise interact with) the object as normal.


----------



## Greenfield (Jun 29, 2012)

Oh, I agree that quantum tunneling through a wall was one hell of a stretch.


----------



## Jimlock (Jul 7, 2012)

Rules Compendium (2007), page 5 "Introduction"




> Introduction
> The book you hold in your hands is the definitive guide for how to play the 3.5 revision of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Roleplaying Game. Years in the making, it gathers resources from a wide variety of supplements, rules errata, and rules clarifications to provide an authoritative guide for playing the D&D game. It updates and elucidates the rules, as well as expanding on them in ways that make it more fun and easier to play. *When a preexisting core book or supple- ment differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence.* If you have a question on how to play D&D at the table, this book is meant to answer that question.




Rules Compendium, page 11 "Antimagic/Spells"




> SPELLS
> Spells don’t function in an anti- magic area, but *an antimagic area doesn’t block line of effect.* If a spell’s point of origin is inside an antimagic area, that spell is entire- ly suppressed. When a spell’s point of origin is located outside an anti- magic area, but part of that spell’s area overlaps the antimagic area, that spell’s effect is suppressed where the two areas overlap. Time elapsed within an antimagic area still counts against a
> spell’s duration.
> If an instantaneous spell is entirely
> ...




For  [MENTION=6669384]Greenfield[/MENTION] &  [MENTION=88006]dakuth[/MENTION]


----------



## Dandu (Jul 7, 2012)

I think someone's head is going to explode.


----------



## Nezkrul (Jul 8, 2012)

can't cast lightning bolt while in an AMF because the point of origin is the caster, the lightning bolt starts at the caster and goes to the designated spot in range; RC says it is cancelled.  Fireball would also be cancelled because of the bead described in the spell streaking toward its destination.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 9, 2012)

Jimlock said:


> Rules Compendium (2007), page 5 "Introduction"
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Counterpoint:



			
				Chris Perkins said:
			
		

> When we release errata, it will always be free.




It logically follows that if the change is rules is not free, it is not errata.  The changed text in the Rules Compendium is not free, therefore it is not official errata.  

Reference:  This quote originally came from Chris Perkins on the WotC boards, at this link: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12291698&postcount=149  The page is no longer there (maybe it's just moved).  It was referenced in this thread on ENWorld: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/202969-wasnt-there-supposed-big-errata-push.html

Of course, this is now entering a world of errata discussions, which got pretty hairy at the end of 3.5.  I give WotC credit for releasing errata to their old product line after 4e was announced and they new there was no money in it, but they did manage to dig themselves into a bit of a hole when it comes to editing the re-releases that they have coming out.

Personally, I find it's easiest to just consider the Rules Compendium (along with Bo9S, Complete Psionics, and PHB2) to essentially be something like D&D 3.5.5.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2012)

> Vernon374
> has no status.
> 
> Registered User
> ...



Reported


----------



## Greenfield (Jul 9, 2012)

Sooooo...


The D&D 3.5 Rules Compendium isn't really D&D 3.5 because it includes D&D 3.5 errata that was freely available, but wasn't actually free in and of itself?

That makes sense.  Not to me, but it makes sense.


----------



## Dandu (Jul 9, 2012)

But the Rule's Compendium is available for free. At least that's how I got it.


----------



## Greenfield (Jul 9, 2012)

So that means that it's 3.5 for some people, but not for the people silly enough to actually buy their books?

I can follow logic like that.

I'll probably follow it with raucous laughter, but I can follow it.

Seriously though, this does spell a certain amount of trouble for the most infamous _Anti-Magic_ user out there, the Beholder.

Consider that his famed _Antimagic_ eye effect is a 60 foot cone, starting in the squares right in front of him.

A spell caster more than 60 feet away throws a spell like _Lightning Bolt_ (just to keep in line with our examples).  The bolt leaps out on course, then vanishes as it enters the _Antimagic_ cone's area, only to reappear when it leaves that area.  Which is to say, right in the Beholder's square.

It limits him even further.

Normally the smart tactic for him is to use _Anti-Magic_on to dis-enchant the bulk of the party, then use his other eye-beams on the people beyond the edge of his cone (melee types, preferably).  He can shift the cone round by round to make new targets available.

He can still do that, but he has to have some way of keeping people from backing beyond the central eye's range.

And two Beholders are actually weaker than one, since their main "weapon" protects its targets from the offensive beams of the other Beholder.  They get in each others way.


----------



## Nezkrul (Jul 10, 2012)

if you can lightning bolt the beholder through his antimagic cone, the beholder can eye ray your butt through his buddies antimagic cone, so long as you aren't standing in it.


----------



## Greenfield (Jul 10, 2012)

Oh, absolutely.


----------



## Dandu (Jul 13, 2012)

Deset Gled said:


> Counterpoint:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You know, this train of logic leads to the conclusion that the Complete Psionic is not actually errata for the Expanded Psionics Handbook.

And I am completely fine with that.


----------



## dakuth (Jul 13, 2012)

Dandu said:


> I think someone's head is going to explode.




If you're talking about me - not at all. This is what I had been asking for *all a long* but until now no-one provided.



Greenfield said:


> Seriously though, this does spell a certain amount of trouble for the most infamous _Anti-Magic_ user out there, the Beholder.
> 
> Consider that his famed _Antimagic_ eye effect is a 60 foot cone, starting in the squares right in front of him.
> 
> A spell caster more than 60 feet away throws a spell like _Lightning Bolt_ (just to keep in line with our examples).  The bolt leaps out on course, then vanishes as it enters the _Antimagic_ cone's area, only to reappear when it leaves that area.  Which is to say, right in the Beholder's square.




This is exactly the problem, why I wandered in here in the first place and why I'll still play blocks LoE.

The difference now is I'm Rule 0ing it.


----------

