Antimagic Field

[redliska]

@ Cartigan

You responded to a post of mine in which i said an item gaining mass slows down, you said this shouldn't affect the objects because the distance was 10 feet. This is a direct result of guess what, the shrink item spell, so if you are not intending to argue about Shrink item don't argue about it.

My argument has never been magic = inertia. Don't be insulting at least have the courtesy to read what I am arguing same goes to TriOmegaZero.

My point on the Int Cha example is you are not using mundane means to aim your weapons. You could for example be guiding them, or perhaps you magically lock on to the target since it isn't spelled out. It is reasonable to disallow TK into AMF and it's also reasonable to allow it. Please note i never said you couldn't I said it was up to the GM to allow or disallow it.

You agreed with me on the AMF rock to mud not forming a dome issue, but you seemed to think i believed it would form a dome. You also seem to have forgotten the fact you brought up the point I was making about shrink item in one of your posts. I am not trying to say you can't throw greatswords or javelins or anything else at a guy in an AMF I am however saying other people have a right to say you can't or perhaps it would work a little bit differently.

Honestly I am not trying to offend I have been up for some time and am rather tired but I don't believe any of my posts have been that garbled, but please do not take offence, I was merely trying to offer a compromise on the shrink item idea of another poster.

[Ashiel]

PRD:Telekinesis wrote:

Violent Thrust: Alternatively, the spell energy can be spent in a single round. You can hurl one object or creature per caster level (maximum 15) that are within range and all within 10 feet of each other toward any target within 10 feet per level of all the objects. You can hurl up to a total weight of 25 pounds per caster level (maximum 375 pounds at 15th level).

You must succeed on attack rolls (one per creature or object thrown) to hit the target with the items, using your base attack bonus + your Intelligence modifier (if a wizard) or Charisma modifier (if a sorcerer). Weapons cause standard damage (with no Strength bonus; note that arrows or bolts deal damage as daggers of their size when used in this manner). Other objects cause damage ranging from 1 point per 25 pounds (for less dangerous objects) to 1d6 points of damage per 25 pounds (for hard, dense objects). Objects and creatures that miss their target land in a square adjacent to the target.

Dictionary.com: Hurl wrote:

hurl

   /hɜrl/ Show Spelled[hurl] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to throw or fling with great force or vigor.
2. to throw or cast down.
3. to utter with vehemence: to hurl insults at the umpire.
–verb (used without object)
4. to throw a missile.
5. Baseball . to pitch a ball.
–noun
6. a forcible or violent throw; fling.

Use hurl in a Sentence
See images of hurl
Search hurl on the Web
Origin:
1175–1225; ME hurlen, equiv. to hur- (perh. akin to hurry) + -len -le; akin to LG hurreln to toss, Fris hurreln to roar (said of the wind), dial. G hurlen to roll, rumble (said of thunder)

—Related forms
hurler, noun
outhurl, verb (used with object)
un·hurled, adjective

—Can be confused:  hurdle, hurl, hurtle.

—Synonyms
1. cast, pitch.

If you argue telekinesis: violent thrust is blocked by antimagic fields, then I argue that the fighter cannot strike me with any range weapon, and giants cannot throw boulders on me while I'm in an antimagic field, since it's the same thing. Especially with the giants!

Anyone saying that the items are magically carried to their destination via magic is grossly misreading the spell, and grossly - and I think intentionally - adding stuff to the spell that isn't there. Sorry, but you hurl the items at the target - IE: pick up + throw = hope to hit.

Antimagic Field Items: Assuming you have a spell-trigger, spell-completion, command-word, or use-activated antimagic field item, I have no complaints. If you have a continual item, you also have a paperweight, since the field functions due to the magic item, but the magic item is shut down by the field (infinite-suck loop; though under a generous interpretation it might function every-other-round, but AMF doesn't take a round to shut-down magic items, so no dice).

Killing Fools Using AMF: Telekinesis is of course a great bet. However, casting AMF is mainly suicide because you're basically turning yourself into a nonmagical commoner with a few too many levels (unless you're a cleric, then you're an aristocrat). Shooting you will pretty much ensure your demise, since your defensive buffs and/or AC will be abysmal. You will lack any and all magical protections of the % miss chance persuasion, and you won't even be able to support mirror image. Unless you can fly naturally, you're not land-bound and probably rather slow for your level. Enlarged humanoids can stand outside your AMF and poke you with pointy sticks.

Even against another wizard, the non-AMF wizard can just pull out a ranged weapon (say a longbow for an elven wizard, or a sling for someone else) and start pelting your non-buffed low-AC butt with arrows until you decide to either spend a standard action to end this stupid field of yours and let them destroy you the old fashioned way, or the wizard can simply erase your existence from the battlefield by trapping you in a wall of stone. Alternatively, in a mage-duel, you end up in something of a standoff since to act the AMF-wizard must end his spell, while the no-AMF-wizard readies an action to screw the AMF-wizard when he does, so you end up with two wizards staring at each other for a little while (11-21 rounds or so).

AMF has its uses (sometimes), but it is far from a reliable source of protection. It's more of a last-ditch panic button that "puts all power to front shields".

[CoDzilla]

Brian Bachman wrote:

CoDzilla wrote:

Lots of stuff negating specific examples, which I had already admitted was possible.

As I said before, there are, of course, counters to every one of these scenarios. There are also counters to those counters. And counters to those counters to those counters. Kind of pointless to run through them, at least to me, but then I get bored easily.

In my opinion, you haven't laid a finger on my core point, that assuming helpless = dead is unwarranted. What happens when someone in your party fails an SoS save? Do they die every time or do you usually find a way to keep them alive/get them through the fight? If the party's opponents aren't being run as intelligently as the party, or have far less capability than the party, I can see where your assumption might be warranted, but then that's GM or campaign-specific, and I know you hate that. :)

Depends on the save or suck. In the case of "you're now a bunny" or "you are unconscious at 0 HP" or "you are a lawn ornament" the only way that character is surviving is if the enemies never get so much a single additional attack off at all. Otherwise, that attack will be aimed at the helpless woodland creature/near dead ally/statue and that's that. There's a reason we optimize saves and init = we know every intelligent foe will do this.

And since that's the only ones we're actually talking about, that's the only ones that are relevant.

[CoDzilla]

Caineach wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

Quote:

if you wanna keep things simple magic doesn't work in an AMF

Good thing the "Violent Thrust" portion of the telekinesis spell never reaches or breaches it.

The problem is that this is entirely arguable and up to the GM. You can argue that violent thrust is a single act like throwing a ball, and once it is released it is nonmagical, thus unaffected by the AMF. He can argue that you are spending the entire time of the spell accellerating the object up to a lethal speed, and that all goes away once it enters the AMF.

Niether of you are wrong because it is unclear in the rules. Both interpretations are valid by the text given and context.

Personally, I am of the oppinion that it works, but if the GM wanted to rule the other way I would not argue it. It is a GM call at the table, since there is no clear rule on it.

Except that TK does the same damage if hurled at a target directly in front of you as it does when hurled at something at the outside edge of your range. If it actually did have to accelerate, and that made a difference in the damage then you'd do more damage the further the target was away from you. Funny how that doesn't happen. Not with TK, and not with any other projectile weapon. The closest thing to that is Point Blank Shot, which is not even remotely similar conceptually, and would work in exactly the opposite way if it were.

[james maissen]

CoDzilla wrote:

Except that TK does the same damage if hurled at a target directly in front of you as it does when hurled at something at the outside edge of your range.

Yeah funny how it doesn't slow down, or have range increments. Also how when it misses it lands within 5' of the target.

If you fire a +2 bolt into an AMF you lose the +2 to hit (you pick up the masterwork +1 for a net +1 to hit) as the magic is suppressed. You also lose the bonus to damage as the magic is no longer with the bolt when it strikes.

For TK you lose the propulsion and the aiming. It fails entirely.

A fireball is instantaneous can it penetrate an AMF like you seem to think a wall of fire or shadow conjuration can?

It is fun to know the rules, and its also fun to actually apply the ones you know and learn the ones you don't.

Also I'm not sure what everyone is claiming rock to mud is going to do here, perhaps someone can spell that out a bit more. Its sounding like a bit loose with those rules that you like so much.

AMF might have many downsides, but perhaps the most telling is how much people don't understand how it works.

-James

[TriOmegaZero]

james maissen wrote:

AMF might have many downsides, but perhaps the most telling is how much people don't understand how it works.

-James

Mostly because it is so vague that people can come to wildly different conclusions, as we have about TK.

[Cartigan]

redliska wrote:

My argument has never been magic = inertia. Don't be insulting at least have the courtesy to read what I am arguing same goes to TriOmegaZero.

Then why would AMF affect it anyway? They would already be large items at the point of throwing with Telekinesis or while in the air which could be at any point before hitting the AMF>

Quote:

My point on the Int Cha example is you are not using mundane means to aim your weapons.

Yes it is. BAB + casting stat

Quote:

You could for example be guiding them, or perhaps you magically lock on to the target since it isn't spelled out.

Perhaps you use your spell to throw items. Which is exactly the method the rules represent.

Quote:

You agreed with me on the AMF rock to mud not forming a dome issue,

No, I said it depends on how the AMF is shaped,

[Cartigan]

james maissen wrote:

If you fire a +2 bolt into an AMF you lose the +2 to hit

For what reason?

The damage is suppressed, but the attack roll is independent of whether it hits or not. If AMF strips the bonus to hit, then that implies the bonus to hit only applies if it hits. Which makes no sense.
It also implies that an item fired from inside an AMF suddenly regains its to-hit bonus after leaving an AMF. Which also makes no sense.

Quote:

For TK you lose the propulsion and the aiming. It fails entirely.

Nonsense. Telekinesis is being used outside the antimagic field. Your argument here means some one not inside an AMF can't use telekinesis at all within hundreds of feet of an AMF.

Quote:

It is fun to know the rules, and its also fun to actually apply the ones you know and learn the ones you don't.

Indeed it is. Please have at it.

[james maissen]

Cartigan wrote:

james maissen wrote:

If you fire a +2 bolt into an AMF you lose the +2 to hit

For what reason?

The damage is suppressed, but the attack roll is independent of whether it hits or not. If AMF strips the bonus to hit, then that implies the bonus to hit only applies if it hits. Which makes no sense.

What are you talking about? It implies no such thing, why would you even think that?? How does a hit alter things???

Your magical bonuses from the bolt don't apply when it enters the AMF. It's that simple. Part of that magical bonus is from the bolt, and its lost when it enters the AMF.

Cartigan wrote:

It also implies that an item fired from inside an AMF suddenly regains its to-hit bonus after leaving an AMF. Which also makes no sense.

At least I can follow this bit of logic.

Let's say our archer in the AMF is firing an arrow that's been shrunk down to small size. In the AMF obviously it's a medium arrow, let after its fired and leaves the AMF it becomes small again.

Does it deal damage as a medium or small arrow?

How different is this from an enlarged person firing a bow?

Certainly we agree that the damage of the magical bolt fired from the AMF is getting its magical bonus to damage should it hit, yes?

-James

[TriOmegaZero]

The disconnect I see is that to me damage is resolved when it hits the target, while to hit rolls are resolved when it is fired.

[Cartigan]

james maissen wrote:

Your magical bonuses from the bolt don't apply when it enters the AMF.

No, they don't. But the to-hit was generated outside the AMF. There is no reason you would lose any bonus to hit when firing into an antimagic field from outside it.

Quote:

Let's say our archer in the AMF is firing an arrow that's been shrunk down to small size. In the AMF obviously it's a medium arrow, let after its fired and leaves the AMF it becomes small again.

Which is a completely irrelevant argument for two reasons:

1) That is the effect of a standalone magic spell.
2) That deals with damage, not to-hit. Does the arrow suddenly increase its chance to hit after exiting the AMF because it has become small?

[james maissen]

Cartigan wrote:

james maissen wrote:

Your magical bonuses from the bolt don't apply when it enters the AMF.

No, they don't. But the to-hit was generated outside the AMF. There is no reason you would lose any bonus to hit when firing into an antimagic field from outside it.

So if a brilliant energy arrow were fired at someone in an AMF you'd rule that it would ignore their armor and shield bonuses to AC as if the AMF weren't there?

The to-hit is not a mystical thing. You break it down. Part of that is based upon the projectile. That loses its benefit when it enters the AMF. Part of that benefit is the increased chance to hit.

-James

[TriOmegaZero]

There was never a time you ignored those bonuses in this case. The brilliant energy effect never comes into play. The enhancement bonus to hit does.

[Kthulhu]

Cartigan wrote:

Because things are magical, nothing not in the rules is not common sense.

Show me in the rules were it says that AMF does NOT alter the intertia of anything that enters it.

[james maissen]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

There was never a time you ignored those bonuses in this case. The brilliant energy effect never comes into play. The enhancement bonus to hit does.

You're determining the hit which is the to hit roll compared against the AC of the target, so why doesn't brilliant energy come into play?

Let's try this another way: a PC outside of the AMF swings a +2 longsword against a creature inside the AMF, does the +2 apply to hit and to dam?

-James

[Cartigan]

james maissen wrote:

So if a brilliant energy arrow were fired at someone in an AMF you'd rule that it would ignore their armor and shield bonuses to AC as if the AMF weren't there?

That's, AGAIN, completely different than the basic to-hit bonus on weapons. A brilliant energy's bonus does, in fact, NOT APPLY until it hits. It can't pass through armor if it doesn't hit. You are STILL making the argument that the bonus to-hit granted by magic weapons doesn't apply until the attack actually hits. Which makes it useless with or without an antimagic field.

Quote:

Let's try this another way: a PC outside of the AMF swings a +2 longsword against a creature inside the AMF, does the +2 apply to hit and to dam?

Could you possibly be more obtuse? The damage does not apply because the damage doesn't count until it hits the target but when the sword hits the target, it is no longer magical.

[Cartigan]

Kthulhu wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

Because things are magical, nothing not in the rules is not common sense.

Show me in the rules were it says that AMF does NOT alter the intertia of anything that enters it.

Show me where in the rules it says AMF acts like Blur and Wind Wall against ranged attacks.

[CoDzilla]

james maissen wrote:

CoDzilla wrote:

Except that TK does the same damage if hurled at a target directly in front of you as it does when hurled at something at the outside edge of your range.

Yeah funny how it doesn't slow down, or have range increments. Also how when it misses it lands within 5' of the target.

You mean like how an arrow from a normal longbow does exactly the same damage at 5 feet as at 100 feet? Guess it's not slowing down much now is it? In fact you can shoot at something 300 meters away and that completely ordinary arrow will shoot out at full speed, and continue to travel full speed until its max range, where it suddenly falls out of the sky.

Quote:

If you fire a +2 bolt into an AMF you lose the +2 to hit (you pick up the masterwork +1 for a net +1 to hit) as the magic is suppressed. You also lose the bonus to damage as the magic is no longer with the bolt when it strikes.

Uh huh. And there's no actual magic on the javelins, so your argument fails. The rest is you being absurd again.

One more chance to make sense.

You summon a creature outside of Suicide Mage's AMF. You hand it a javelin. It throws the javelin at Suicide Mage. What happens?

[james maissen]

Cartigan wrote:

A brilliant energy's bonus does, in fact, NOT APPLY until it hits.

Umm.. what do you mean by 'hit' cause it's not what anyone else I know uses it as.

Brilliant energy doesn't apply until a hit? What does it DO then???

Likewise if you have a +1 seeking bolt and fire it into an AMF against a target with concealment (non-magical of course) does the seeking work?

Cartigan wrote:

Quote:

Let's try this another way: a PC outside of the AMF swings a +2 longsword against a creature inside the AMF, does the +2 apply to hit and to dam?

The damage does not apply because the damage doesn't count until it hits the target but when the sword hits the target, it is no longer magical.

So it doesn't apply to damage, even though the wielder is outside the AMF. Does it apply to the chance to hit?

-James

[james maissen]

CoDzilla wrote:

james maissen wrote:

Also how when it misses it lands within 5' of the target.

In fact you can shoot at something 300 meters away and that completely ordinary arrow will shoot out at full speed, and continue to travel full speed until its max range, where it suddenly falls out of the sky.

So we can agree that TK isn't following the normal laws of physics even as modeled in D&D?

Either the javelins are propelled by magic or mundane means. To me it's obviously magical, do you have anything to support that it's mundane?

CoDzilla wrote:

Uh huh. And there's no actual magic on the javelins, so your argument fails.

Yeah, there is magic involved. The magic is propelling the javelins, when the magic ends, so does the magic propelling them.

A PC casts a fireball and tries to shoot it through an AMF, what happens?

-James

[Cartigan]

james maissen wrote:

Umm.. what do you mean by 'hit' cause it's not what anyone else I know uses it as.

Brilliant energy "works" by going through armor. Brilliant energy attacks hit the flat-footed AC by going through armor. Ie, it doesn't hit until it hits. You would have to hit their flat-footed AC to automatically hit. Once the bolt enters the AMF, it is no longer magical and unless you have ALSO beat their normal AC on the attack roll, the bolt bounces off their armor.

Not even remotely the same thing as the static magic bonus.

Quote:

Brilliant energy doesn't apply until a hit? What does it DO then???

I presume you read it? But that may be pushing it.

Quote:

Likewise if you have a +1 seeking bolt and fire it into an AMF against a target with concealment (non-magical of course) does the seeking work?

EDIT: That one is actually hard to say. The magic affecting the projectile may or may not still need to be in effect inside the antimagic field.

But that STILL has nothing to do with a generic bonus to hit granted by a basic enchantment. Does a basic enchantment ignore armor? Does it bend around corners? No. It's the same as a masterwork ranged weapon, but better.

Quote:

So it doesn't apply to damage, even though the wielder is outside the AMF. Does it apply to the chance to hit?

I don't see why it wouldn't. The attack is calculated outside the antimagic field. You are ALREADY in the process of hitting by the time the antimagic field comes into play. Does the antimagic field also create a blur and wind wall?

Quote:

A PC casts a fireball and tries to shoot it through an AMF, what happens?

A FIREBALL IS MAGIC. Your attempt to be a wise ass fails.

Quote:

The magic is propelling the javelins, when the magic ends, so does the magic propelling them.

Apparently AMFs generate a conditional wind wall against mundane items that are thrown by magical means - either a spell or the result of a spell.

[TriOmegaZero]

james maissen wrote:

Yeah, there is magic involved. The magic is propelling the javelins, when the magic ends, so does the magic propelling them.

A PC casts a fireball and tries to shoot it through an AMF, what happens?

-James

The magical bead disappears, obviously. However, the nonmagical javelin does not.

[Caineach]

Cartigan wrote:

james maissen wrote:

Umm.. what do you mean by 'hit' cause it's not what anyone else I know uses it as.

Brilliant energy "works" by going through armor. Brilliant energy attacks hit the flat-footed AC by going through armor. Ie, it doesn't hit until it hits. You would have to hit their flat-footed AC to automatically hit. Once the bolt enters the AMF, it is no longer magical and unless you have ALSO beat their normal AC on the attack roll, the bolt bounces off their armor.

Not even remotely the same thing as the static magic bonus.

Quote:

Brilliant energy doesn't apply until a hit? What does it DO then???

I presume you read it? But that may be pushing it.

Quote:

Likewise if you have a +1 seeking bolt and fire it into an AMF against a target with concealment (non-magical of course) does the seeking work?

Yes. Does the arrow fly around in a holding pattern until it finds the target, then hits it? No? It goes straight to it? Then the AMF doesn't matter, the to-hit is calculated regardless of the existence of the antimagic field.

Quote:

So it doesn't apply to damage, even though the wielder is outside the AMF. Does it apply to the chance to hit?

I don't see why it wouldn't. The attack is calculated outside the antimagic field. You are ALREADY in the process of hitting by the time the antimagic field comes into play. Does the antimagic field also create a blur and wind wall?

Quote:

A PC casts a fireball and tries to shoot it through an AMF, what happens?

A FIREBALL IS MAGIC. Your attempt to be a wise ass fails.

Quote:

The magic is propelling the javelins, when the magic ends, so does the magic propelling them.

Apparently AMFs generate a conditional wind wall against mundane items that are thrown by magical means - either a spell or the result of a spell.

I disagree with you Cartigan. The magial bonuses to hit I have always considered the magic correcting your aim in mid flight/penetrating armor better. I would not give a player any magical bonuses to hit if they were firing into an antimaic field, as the arrow would no longer be able to perform its function.

[james maissen]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

james maissen wrote:

Yeah, there is magic involved. The magic is propelling the javelins, when the magic ends, so does the magic propelling them.

A PC casts a fireball and tries to shoot it through an AMF, what happens?

-James

The magical bead disappears, obviously. However, the nonmagical javelin does not.

Even though the fireball spell is instantaneous there are parts to it.

Claiming that just because this use of TK is instantaneous doesn't mean that the magic isn't propelling and aiming the objects. The fact that misses don't behave as normal supports this.

Mind you I agree that this is something that could use some FAQ addressing as many things like this are going to be edge cases, yet important in valuing the spell's worth.

The non-magical javelin doesn't, but the magical properties of the javelin do. In this case the javelin is being hurled through the air and aimed at a target by this magic. When it enters the AMF this ends as much as the magical bead does, and just to that extent.

-James

[TriOmegaZero]

Caineach wrote:

I disagree with you Cartigan. The magial bonuses to hit I have always considered the magic correcting your aim in mid flight/penetrating armor better. I would not give a player any magical bonuses to hit if they were firing into an antimaic field, as the arrow would no longer be able to perform its function.

Supposing it was the bow that was magical, what then? Is it the bow making the shot more accurate, or the arrow being magically guided?

[Caineach]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Caineach wrote:

I disagree with you Cartigan. The magial bonuses to hit I have always considered the magic correcting your aim in mid flight/penetrating armor better. I would not give a player any magical bonuses to hit if they were firing into an antimaic field, as the arrow would no longer be able to perform its function.

Supposing it was the bow that was magical, what then? Is it the bow making the shot more accurate, or the arrow being magically guided?

The bow is enchanting the arrow to guide it.

[TriOmegaZero]

james maissen wrote:

Even though the fireball spell is instantaneous there are parts to it.

Claiming that just because this use of TK is instantaneous doesn't mean that the magic isn't propelling and aiming the objects. The fact that misses don't behave as normal supports this.

Mind you I agree that this is something that could use some FAQ addressing as many things like this are going to be edge cases, yet important in valuing the spell's worth.

The non-magical javelin doesn't, but the magical properties of the javelin do. In this case the javelin is being hurled through the air and aimed at a target by this magic. When it enters the AMF this ends as much as the magical bead does, and just to that extent.

-James

Except that the Violent Thrust option is described as a 'single, short violent thrust'. Thus there is no magic pushing it along its flight, just inertia. There is no 'magical aiming device' described anywhere in the spell. You're adding extra information to the 'uses BAB + casting mod' part.

[TriOmegaZero]

Caineach wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Supposing it was the bow that was magical, what then? Is it the bow making the shot more accurate, or the arrow being magically guided?

The bow is enchanting the arrow to guide it.

Now suppose it's a crossbow with a magical sight giving the user a bonus to hit. Does he still get the bonus shooting into an AMF?

(I'm not going anywhere with this, just amusing myself, so please don't take it the wrong way.)

[Caineach]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Caineach wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Supposing it was the bow that was magical, what then? Is it the bow making the shot more accurate, or the arrow being magically guided?

The bow is enchanting the arrow to guide it.

Now suppose it's a crossbow with a magical sight giving the user a bonus to hit. Does he still get the bonus shooting into an AMF?

(I'm not going anywhere with this, just amusing myself, so please don't take it the wrong way.)

How can the magical sight see into the Antimagic field?

[Cartigan]

james maissen wrote:

Claiming that just because this use of TK is instantaneous doesn't mean that the magic isn't propelling and aiming the objects.

You are aiming the objects when you throw them. Hence the attack rolls.

Quote:

The fact that misses don't behave as normal supports this.

What?

Telekinesis wrote:

Objects and creatures that miss their target land in a square adjacent to the target.

Throw Splash Weapon wrote:

If you miss the target (whether aiming at a creature or a grid intersection), roll 1d8. This determines the misdirection of the throw, with 1 falling short (off-target in a straight line toward the thrower), and 2 through 8 rotating around the target creature or grid intersection in a clockwise direction.

[james maissen]

Cartigan wrote:

Brilliant energy attacks hit the flat-footed AC by going through armor. Ie, it doesn't hit until it hits.

Quote:

Likewise if you have a +1 seeking bolt and fire it into an AMF against a target with concealment (non-magical of course) does the seeking work?

EDIT: That one is actually hard to say. The magic affecting the projectile may or may not still need to be in effect inside the antimagic field.

Quote:

So it doesn't apply to damage, even though the wielder is outside the AMF. Does it apply to the chance to hit?

I don't see why it wouldn't. The attack is calculated outside the antimagic field. You are ALREADY in the process of hitting by the time the antimagic field comes into play.

Seeking is an interesting case. Is it fire and forget, or does it need to be in effect during the hit?

You claim that brilliant energy needs to hit to hit, which semantically makes no sense. What you perhaps had meant to say was that it doesn't get checked until the projectile is inside the AMF?

So, if that's right, you're claiming that the hitroll is checked outside, even if the weapon has to enter the AMF. It gets dicey for you with a property like seeking, but for some reason not dicey with a melee weapon. If the melee weapon were a reach weapon that were striking beyond just the edge of the AMF, would that change how you view it? What about something like bless weapon letting a critical auto-confirm? Is simply a matter of location of the wielder? If that's the case why doesn't the damage apply.. the wielder is still outside of the AMF (and that's even been argued before).

You're drawing lines here, but I don't see any support or even much reasoning for them. But its at least reasoning, so I'm willing to work with it and see where it goes-

'You are already in the process' doesn't seem to bear much weight with me. Why does it with you? Many things can interrupt this process and effect the process of hitting, why isn't an AMF one of those? If someone readied an action (as silly as it might be) to dispel the magic on the weapon when it attacked it certainly would remove the bonus to hit. How different is an AMF from a successful dispel magic on an item?

-James

[Cartigan]

Caineach wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Caineach wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Supposing it was the bow that was magical, what then? Is it the bow making the shot more accurate, or the arrow being magically guided?

The bow is enchanting the arrow to guide it.

Now suppose it's a crossbow with a magical sight giving the user a bonus to hit. Does he still get the bonus shooting into an AMF?

(I'm not going anywhere with this, just amusing myself, so please don't take it the wrong way.)

How can the magical sight see into the Antimagic field?

Things antimagic fields can do: blur, wind wall, deeper darkness

[Dire Mongoose]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Except that the Violent Thrust option is described as a 'single, short violent thrust'.

Where I think the disconnect between people arguing is:

Is TK launching the javelins like a crossbow and then its influence is done?

Or is it pushing them all the way to the target?

I think you can make a decent argument for either -- both are instantaneous from the perspective of game time, since you cast the spell and it happens immediately.

[Cartigan]

james maissen wrote:

'You are already in the process' doesn't seem to bear much weight with me. Why does it with you? Many things can interrupt this process and effect the process of hitting, why isn't an AMF one of those?

How many of those "many things" don't involve blocking or deflecting the attack?

[TriOmegaZero]

Caineach wrote:

How can the magical sight see into the Antimagic field?

I suppose that depends on if the sight transmits a magical line similar to a laser sight, or magically magnifies the image shown through the reticle. In the first case you need line of effect, in the second only line of sight. AMF would block the first but not the second.

[james maissen]

Cartigan wrote:

james maissen wrote:

'You are already in the process' doesn't seem to bear much weight with me. Why does it with you? Many things can interrupt this process and effect the process of hitting, why isn't an AMF one of those?

How many of those "many things" don't involve blocking or deflecting the attack?

Do you need me to count?

I listed an example in that same post.. in fact it was the very next line.

-James

[Cartigan]

Dire Mongoose wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Except that the Violent Thrust option is described as a 'single, short violent thrust'.

Where I think the disconnect between people arguing is:

Is TK launching the javelins like a crossbow and then its influence is done?

Or is it pushing them all the way to the target?

I think you can make a decent argument for either

I completely disagree. Nowhere in violent thrust does it mention sustained force to perform it. As it does in the other two uses of telekinesis.

[Caineach]

Cartigan wrote:

Caineach wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Caineach wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Supposing it was the bow that was magical, what then? Is it the bow making the shot more accurate, or the arrow being magically guided?

The bow is enchanting the arrow to guide it.

Now suppose it's a crossbow with a magical sight giving the user a bonus to hit. Does he still get the bonus shooting into an AMF?

(I'm not going anywhere with this, just amusing myself, so please don't take it the wrong way.)

How can the magical sight see into the Antimagic field?

Things antimagic fields can do: blur, wind wall, deeper darkness

No, I am saying that a magical sight is using magic to detect the target inside the field so it can fire at it better, and that wont work. it does block scrying and divination, which is what a magical sight would be.

[Cartigan]

james maissen wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

james maissen wrote:

'You are already in the process' doesn't seem to bear much weight with me. Why does it with you? Many things can interrupt this process and effect the process of hitting, why isn't an AMF one of those?

How many of those "many things" don't involve blocking or deflecting the attack?

Do you need me to count?

I listed an example in that same post.. in fact it was the very next line.

Quote:

If someone readied an action (as silly as it might be) to dispel the magic on the weapon when it attacked it certainly would remove the bonus to hit.

You realize of course that readied actions occur before the action is to be carried out. The weapon would be dispelled before the attack roll is made.

[TriOmegaZero]

Dire Mongoose wrote:

Is TK launching the javelins like a crossbow and then its influence is done?

Or is it pushing them all the way to the target?

I think you can make a decent argument for either -- both are instantaneous from the perspective of game time, since you cast the spell and it happens immediately.

If so, why have two separate uses? Just have 'Push' with a notation that you can use it to move it at a safe pace, or push at high velocity for a dangerous pace. The fact that it delineates 'Sustained Force' and 'Violent Thrust' tells me that you are not constantly affecting the objects with all uses of TK.

[Cartigan]

Caineach wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

Caineach wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Caineach wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Supposing it was the bow that was magical, what then? Is it the bow making the shot more accurate, or the arrow being magically guided?

The bow is enchanting the arrow to guide it.

Now suppose it's a crossbow with a magical sight giving the user a bonus to hit. Does he still get the bonus shooting into an AMF?

(I'm not going anywhere with this, just amusing myself, so please don't take it the wrong way.)

How can the magical sight see into the Antimagic field?

Things antimagic fields can do: blur, wind wall, deeper darkness

No, I am saying that a magical sight is using magic to detect the target inside the field so it can fire at it better, and that wont work. it does block scrying and divination, which is what a magical sight would be.

Would antimagic field prevent an arcane eye from seeing anyone in an antimagic field if said arcane eye existed outside the AMF?

[Dire Mongoose]

Cartigan wrote:

Dire Mongoose wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Except that the Violent Thrust option is described as a 'single, short violent thrust'.

Where I think the disconnect between people arguing is:

Is TK launching the javelins like a crossbow and then its influence is done?

Or is it pushing them all the way to the target?

I think you can make a decent argument for either

I completely disagree. Nowhere in violent thrust does it mention sustained force to perform it. As it does in the other two uses of telekinesis.

One takes place all on your turn while casting, the other takes place over several round. That's a pretty simple reason to differentiate as it does.

[Cartigan]

Dire Mongoose wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

Dire Mongoose wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Except that the Violent Thrust option is described as a 'single, short violent thrust'.

Where I think the disconnect between people arguing is:

Is TK launching the javelins like a crossbow and then its influence is done?

Or is it pushing them all the way to the target?

I think you can make a decent argument for either

I completely disagree. Nowhere in violent thrust does it mention sustained force to perform it. As it does in the other two uses of telekinesis.

One takes place all on your turn while casting, the other takes place over several round. That's a pretty simple reason to differentiate as it does.

If you discount all of the other text as well. Why would it say "hurl" instead of "propel?"

[Dire Mongoose]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

The fact that it delineates 'Sustained Force' and 'Violent Thrust' tells me that you are not constantly affecting the objects with all uses of TK.

Well, look at it this way: stabbing someone with a spear and throwing a spear to hit someone could probably both be described as a 'Violent Thrust' but one involves application of force the whole way through and the other is launching. Either occurs instantaneously from the respect of game time.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just saying, I think you can make a non-ridiculous case for either.

[Caineach]

Cartigan wrote:

Caineach wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

Caineach wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Caineach wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Supposing it was the bow that was magical, what then? Is it the bow making the shot more accurate, or the arrow being magically guided?

The bow is enchanting the arrow to guide it.

Now suppose it's a crossbow with a magical sight giving the user a bonus to hit. Does he still get the bonus shooting into an AMF?

(I'm not going anywhere with this, just amusing myself, so please don't take it the wrong way.)

How can the magical sight see into the Antimagic field?

Things antimagic fields can do: blur, wind wall, deeper darkness

No, I am saying that a magical sight is using magic to detect the target inside the field so it can fire at it better, and that wont work. it does block scrying and divination, which is what a magical sight would be.

Would antimagic field prevent an arcane eye from seeing anyone in an antimagic field if said arcane eye existed outside the AMF?

No, but it is entirely passive. The sight is not, and I feel that is enough of a distinction. I can see the argument the other way, but that is how I would rule. Its entirely up to the GM at the table.

[CoDzilla]

Cartigan wrote:

Caineach wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Caineach wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Supposing it was the bow that was magical, what then? Is it the bow making the shot more accurate, or the arrow being magically guided?

The bow is enchanting the arrow to guide it.

Now suppose it's a crossbow with a magical sight giving the user a bonus to hit. Does he still get the bonus shooting into an AMF?

(I'm not going anywhere with this, just amusing myself, so please don't take it the wrong way.)

How can the magical sight see into the Antimagic field?

Things antimagic fields can do: blur, wind wall, deeper darkness

Think he'll keep going? I'm betting on yes.

I've given up on him making any sense whatsoever, as he had his final chance and he blew it.

But here's a repeat question for everyone else.

You summon a creature outside the AMF. You give the creature an ordinary javelin and direct it to throw the javelin at Suicide Mage. It does so. What happens?