If you cast an instantaneous spell from within an AMF, you've wasted it, because it is suppressed.
If you cast a duration spell from within an AMF, such as a buff on yourself, you may or may not have wasted it. When the AMF goes away (by the beholder closing its eye, or you leaving the AoE), if there is still time left on your buff, it will no longer be suppressed and be active.
No, it simply doesn't work.
The magic that creates the effect cannot happen, thus the spell can't be cast. Spells that have already been put into place are suppressed because the magic is already present, but simply cannot function.
I see the issue, it's the line about suppressing spells used within it. However, right before that it also says it "prevents the functioning of spells." Prevent means to stop something from happening. Also, later in the spell's description it differentiates between instantaneous conjuration spells and the EFFECTS of instantaneous conjurations. It says the reason that the effects work in an AMF is "because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result" which means that the conjuration, that is to say the spell, wouldn't work to begin with as it needs to take effect. By your interpretation, instantaneous conjuration spells would work perfectly fine in an AMF, which isn't the case.
No, it simply doesn't work.
The magic that creates the effect cannot happen, thus the spell can't be cast. Spells that have already been put into place are suppressed because the magic is already present, but simply cannot function.
I see the issue, it's the line about suppressing spells used within it. However, right before that it also says it "prevents the functioning of spells." Prevent means to stop something from happening. Also, later in the spell's description it differentiates between instantaneous conjuration spells and the EFFECTS of instantaneous conjurations. It says the reason that the effects work in an AMF is "because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result" which means that the conjuration, that is to say the spell, wouldn't work to begin with as it needs to take effect. By your interpretation, instantaneous conjuration spells would work perfectly fine in an AMF, which isn't the case.
That's a curious interpretation of what "prevents the functioning of spells" means. By a strict reading, the AMF stops the spell from functioning (read: working) while in the AMF. It does not, in any way, imply that it prevents casting the spell. If that was the intention, it'd have been pretty simple to note that explicitly in the spell description.
If you're in an AMF, you can cast mage armour on yourself. The AMF prevents the spell from functioning, so you don't get a +4 armour. Once the AMF drops, the spell is no longer prevented from functioning, and you get your +4 armour.
Personally, I'm going to house rule that you can't. But that's not my reading of the actual AMF text.
If that were the case it would have no impact on instantaneous conjurations whatsoever. If the spell goes off, and the effect of the spell is not subject to AMF, then it would work perfectly. I don't think that's the case.
I admit that the wording on this spell is hideously done, but I just don't think you can cast spells in an area where magic is prevented from functioning.
Maybe I'm wrong. I don't really see people agreeing on this one : )
It isn't a matter of agreement, it is a matter of what the rules say.
It is clear that AMF suppresses spells, it does not dispel them. It does not prevent them from being cast, as it specifically spells out what occurs when spells are cast within one.
If the RAW intended for spells to fail, period, the spell description would be much simpler.
"An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines.
An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell's duration."
The only reading of the spell description that makes sense is that the second paragraph further defines the first and is not a restatement.
To rule that 'prevents the functioning' equates to 'prevents the spell from working, period' is to render that following paragraph needless and inaccurate.
Not really. The second paragraph is there to explain what happens when outside magic tries to enter the AMF area from the outside. It's an expansion on the previous idea that it prevents the functioning of spells within its confines, making sure it details the different conditions that could happen.
The fact of the matter is we aren't arguing over game terminology, we're picking apart regular english. All arguments that get to this point are usually because the wording in question is poorly written or ambiguous in some fashion. If the spell were intended to allow spells to be cast in it and then suddenly pop into existence after the AMF was no longer a factor, it should say so. If the AMF prevents spells from being cast at all, it should say so. It does neither. C'est la vie. It's why I've marked your original post for FAQ.
This still brings up the issue I asked a few posts earlier. By your idea of how the spell works, instantaneous conjurations would work perfectly within the AMF. (If they don't work, it's because spells can't actually be cast, if they could, as soon as you cast it the object is there and not subject to the AMF, as per a later paragraph in the spell description.) I'm sure, as you want all of this to work obviously, that you're perfectly fine with that result, but I think we can agree it seems very off that you can make objects appear spontaneously using magic in an anti-magic field.
Not really. The second paragraph is there to explain what happens when outside magic tries to enter the AMF area from the outside. It's an expansion on the previous idea that it prevents the functioning of spells within its confines, making sure it details the different conditions that could happen.
That would be true except for the wording "An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within". A spell could not be used within the AMF unless casting was possible.
The fact of the matter is we aren't arguing over game terminology, we're picking apart regular english. All arguments that get to this point are usually because the wording in question is poorly written or ambiguous in some fashion. If the spell were intended to allow spells to be cast in it and then suddenly pop into existence after the AMF was no longer a factor, it should say so. If the AMF prevents spells from being cast at all, it should say so. It does neither. C'est la vie. It's why I've marked your original post for FAQ.
The definition of 'suppressed magic' does actually cause the spell to 'say so'.
This still brings up the issue I asked a few posts earlier. By your idea of how the spell works, instantaneous conjurations would work perfectly within the AMF. (If they don't work, it's because spells can't actually be cast, if they could, as soon as you cast it the object is there and not subject to the AMF, as per a later paragraph in the spell description.) I'm sure, as you want all of this to work obviously, that you're perfectly fine with that result, but I think we can agree it seems very off that you can make objects appear spontaneously using magic in an anti-magic field.
Absolutely not. An instantaneous spell FAILS, because it is suppressed for its entire duration. It has no duration remaining when the AMF is no longer a factor, and thus no effect at all.
Also, I do not "want this to work obviously". I was against this from the beginning, as you can read, but I'm not dealing in what my personal preference for an AMF is. I'm dealing with what the rules say.
This still brings up the issue I asked a few posts earlier. By your idea of how the spell works, instantaneous conjurations would work perfectly within the AMF. (If they don't work, it's because spells can't actually be cast, if they could, as soon as you cast it the object is there and not subject to the AMF, as per a later paragraph in the spell description.) I'm sure, as you want all of this to work obviously, that you're perfectly fine with that result, but I think we can agree it seems very off that you can make objects appear spontaneously using magic in an anti-magic field.Absolutely not. An instantaneous spell FAILS, because it is suppressed for its entire duration. It has no duration remaining when the AMF is no longer a factor, and thus no effect at all.
Also, I do not "want this to work obviously". I was against this from the...
I actually agree with Sylvanite's interpretation. If you are able to cast spells with a duration you must be able to cast conjurations, whether they have duration or not, because the field doesn't actually prevent spellcasting, it only suppresses magical effects. Instantaneous conjurations don't produce magical effects and the field does not prevent spellcasting thus they should not be suppressed.
The spell is a logical fallacy.
I read it as follows:
(The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)
This means that the spell itself is affected the same as any other spell (as regards to being able to cast it, being able to target it, etc). However, if the spell has already been cast, the effects of the spell don't go away. You don't suddenly start bleeding because the Cure Critical Wounds spell got suppressed, and you don't make the wall from a Wall of Stone spell disappear when you get close to it.
I read it as follows:
This means that the spell itself is affected the same as any other spell (as regards to being able to cast it, being able to target it, etc). However, if the spell has already been cast, the effects of the spell don't go away. You don't suddenly start bleeding because the Cure Critical Wounds spell got suppressed, and you don't make the wall from a Wall of Stone spell disappear when you get close to it.
I read it as follows:
(The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)
Does the field prevent you from casting the said spell ? Because if it does not, the spell must take effect immediately and because it is not a magical effect it can not be suppressed. If it prevents it, it must prevent all casting within the field - no exceptions. Spellcasting involves magic, I agree, and thus I think all forms of spellcasting should be banned within the field. But if the rules allow for spells to be cast and continue working once the field goes away than it must allow instantaneous conjurations to work, because they are not magic. In this case the field only suppresses magical effects and not spellcasting. Since spellcasting is magic in the making all spellcasting should fail within the field, but the rules don't clearly state so.
There is only one way for am field to make sense really and that is to prevent all forms of spellcasting within the field.
Instantaneous conjurations don't produce magical effects
Of course they do. They produce instantaneous magical effects with lasting, nonmagical results - but if the instantaneous magical effect is suppressed, the nonmagical result won't happen.
There is only one way for am field to make sense really and that is to prevent all forms of spellcasting within the field.
How can that make sense? That is specifically, directly against what the text of the spell says that it does.
Spellcasting itself is working magic, but the spell itself is not. The duration of the spell is instantaneous not of the spellcasting or of the effect that produces the spell, which is equal to the process of spellcasting.
Durations are a game mechanic to describe how long the spell effect lasts.
Acid Splash is an instantaneous spell, which means the effect of the spell is done in an instant or instantly and does not last an instant more. The effect is not magical and is instantaneous. That's it. The spellcasting process that created it was magical but it's technically allowed within the anti-magic field.
If spellcasting itself is not suppressed it makes little sense to suppress the non magical effect of the spell.
If you cast Mage Armor within the am field, does it start functioning when the field goes away ? Why ? When you finished the casting of it it also produced "instantaneous" magical effect that created the Mage Armor effect, but the ma effect has duration and is not instantaneous. Shouldn't that creation effect that formed Mage Armor also be forbidden or do spells that have duration form in some other way and where is the ruling for that?
Spellcasting itself is working magic, but the spell itself is not.
I suppose it is to be expected that when you start with a premise like "spells are not magic" then you will end up with wrong conclusions.
All spells are magic. Pretty basic, there. Instantaneous spells are also magic. An instantaneous spell uses magic to conjure something into existence, which may not be magical once created but which is created by magic. If the magic that would have created it is suppressed, it won't be created in the first place. If the suppression effect is later removed... too late, the magic was instantaneous and is gone now.
On the other hand, spells with a duration represent not instantaneous but continuous magic. The magic remains throughout the duration of the spell rather than coming and going in a flash. If such an effect is suppressed and later the suppression effect is removed, the magic is still there and begins working again.
Spellcasting itself is working magic, but the spell itself is not.I suppose it is to be expected that when you start with a premise like "spells are not magic" then you will end up with wrong conclusions.
All spells are magic. Pretty basic, there. Instantaneous spells are also magic. An instantaneous spell uses magic to conjure something into existence, which may not be magical once created but which is created by magic. If the magic that would have created it is suppressed, it won't be created in the first place. If the suppression effect is later removed... too late, the magic was instantaneous and is gone now.
On the other hand, spells with a duration represent not instantaneous but continuous magic. The magic remains throughout the duration of the spell rather than coming and going in a flash. If such an effect is suppressed and later the suppression effect is removed, the magic is still there and begins working again.
I agree completely with you and that's what I think the spell should do, but I find it funny that there is a lot left to interpretation when it comes to this particular spell, mainly because of it's poor wording.
It would've been a lot easier and less confusing to say that spellcasting, or parts of spells, cast/brought into or out of the am field fail, excluding spells not affected by sr cast into it.
It would've been a lot easier and less confusing to say that spellcasting, or parts of spells, cast/brought into or out of the am field fail, excluding spells not affected by sr cast into it.
Maybe so, but that doesn't seem to have been what the writers wanted to happen.
Although tbh, I don't think the spell wording is all that opaque when you get into it; the actual text of the spell seems fairly direct in laying out what is supposed to happen. I think the bigger problem people have been having is that what the text says the spell does is not what people who haven't taken a close look at the text expect that a spell named Antimagic Field should do; ie, that people expect the spell to negate magic rather than suppress it, and the idea that the spell only suppresses magic (despite being clearly stated) seems counterintuitive.
I admit I didn't think it worked as it did before I read it closely, too. ;)
I would like to thank the original poster for bringing this up, as it spurred me to re-evaluate antimagic field once again. I must now agree with those that say you can indeed cast spells inside an antimagic field. That is how it says it works.
Additionally, I'd like to tip my hat to the party who frantically buffed themselves while inside the field in hopes of protecting themselves from the arsewhuppin' they were going to receive when the Beholder's eye closed. Good thinking, and I would have nodded and congratulated my players for thinking of such a thing (as opposed to, say, trying to just stab the beholder to death faster than it killed them).
Thank you. I will have to let this idea bubble in my GM mind for a little while. I'm pretty sure this adds to the many ways of avoiding the crutch that is antimagic field.
Protip: Ever wonder why wizards wear pointy hats? It's to protect them from antimagic fields. See antimagic fields are emanations, and pointy hats are tents that have been shrunk using magic. If they find themselves in an antimagic field, the tent expands around them, blocking the emanation, allowing them to cast a quick spell to save their kiester, such as dimension door or teleport, thought they lose a nice hat in the process.
I read it as follows:
This means that the spell itself is affected the same as any other spell (as regards to being able to cast it, being able to target it, etc). However, if the spell has already been cast, the effects of the spell don't go away. You don't suddenly start bleeding because the Cure Critical Wounds spell got suppressed, and you don't make the wall from a Wall of Stone spell disappear when you get close to it.
I read it as follows:
(The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)Does the field prevent you from casting the said spell ? Because if it does not, the spell must take effect immediately and because it is not a magical effect it can not be suppressed. If it prevents it, it must prevent all casting within the field - no exceptions. Spellcasting involves magic, I agree, and thus I think all forms of spellcasting should be banned within the field. But if the rules allow for spells to be cast and continue working once the field goes away than it must allow instantaneous conjurations to work, because they are not magic. In this case the field only suppresses magical effects and not spellcasting. Since spellcasting is magic in the making all spellcasting should fail within the field, but the rules don't clearly state so.
There is only one way for am field to make sense really and that is to prevent all forms of spellcasting within the field.
It really depends on whether "Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines." is flavor text or rule text. If it's flavor, then you can certainly cast spells inside it, and if they're still in effect or happen to be instantaneous conjuration spells, then you're good. If it's rules text, then no spells will work, including instantaneous conjurations (they just are specifically called out as not going away).
It really depends on whether "Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines." is flavor text or rule text. If it's flavor, then you can certainly cast spells inside it, and if they're still in effect or happen to be instantaneous conjuration spells, then you're good. If it's rules text, then no spells will work, including instantaneous conjurations (they just are specifically called out as not...
That sentence is ok I think. The sentence under that one is causing all the confusion. :)
Can we all just FAQ this sucker and wait for some kind of official clarification? (Hopefully whoever answers it actually clarifies instead of making the issue worse with some half-arsed answer that totally ignores the wording problems of the spell.)
The spell is a disaster as written, and worse than us arguing on the boards, I'd hate to have situations where players use it in a game thinking it will do one thing, then the DM does another thing with it, and the game implodes with arguments. Or the DM uses it in some sneaky way the group doesn't understand and a TPK results due to the poor wording and confusion of a spell.
Can we all just FAQ this sucker and wait for some kind of official clarification? (Hopefully whoever answers it actually clarifies instead of making the issue worse with some half-arsed answer that totally ignores the wording problems of the spell.)
The spell is a disaster as written, and worse than us arguing on the boards, I'd hate to have situations where players use it in a game thinking it will do one thing, then the DM does another thing with it, and the game implodes with arguments. Or the DM uses it in some sneaky way the group doesn't understand and a TPK results due to the poor wording and confusion of a spell.
Will it help? The first post is up to "7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Not an error."...
Will it help? The first post is up to "7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Not an error."...
Probably not, the wording is from way back in 3.x anyway (3.0, even, I think), not a PF specific change.
Can always hope, though. But tbh I still don't think the wording is that unclear when you actually get into it. Counterintuitive, perhaps, unclear, no. It actually seems very clear to me that it is not intended to prevent but rather to suppress spells with a duration, because it clearly says that (and how does it say that? Clearly).
Will it help? The first post is up to "7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Not an error."...Probably not, the wording is from way back in 3.x anyway (3.0, even, I think), not a PF specific change.
Can always hope, though. But tbh I still don't think the wording is that unclear when you actually get into it. Counterintuitive, perhaps, unclear, no. It actually seems very clear to me that it is not intended to prevent but rather to suppress spells with a duration, because it clearly says that (and how does it say that? Clearly).
Obviously not, or this thread wouldn't exist :p Especially since the thread includes varying opinions (and some people claiming to have only now CHANGED their opinions) from people who are well-respected and established members of this board.
Obviously not, or this thread wouldn't exist :p Especially since the thread includes varying opinions (and some people claiming to have only now CHANGED their opinions) from people who are well-respected and established members of this board.
Will it help? The first post is up to "7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Not an error."...Probably not, the wording is from way back in 3.x anyway (3.0, even, I think), not a PF specific change.
Can always hope, though. But tbh I still don't think the wording is that unclear when you actually get into it. Counterintuitive, perhaps, unclear, no. It actually seems very clear to me that it is not intended to prevent but rather to suppress spells with a duration, because it clearly says that (and how does it say that? Clearly).
Well respected and established doesn't equate to infallible. As Coriat said, the spell description is counterintuitive to what we consider immediately when we hear 'antimagic', but that doesn't make the spell any less clear as to its mechanics once you clear out those preconceptions.
I personally think it should be a 'no magic, no how' sphere. Artifacts and gods exempt, disjunction can ruin it. That doesn't change anything about the RAW wording though.
There's a problem with HansiIsMyGod's interpretation.
Instantaneous does NOT mean "takes no time".
Only non-actions in D&D take absolutely 0 time to perform.
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn.
Immediate Action: An immediate action is very similar to a swift action, but can be performed at any time—even if it's not your turn.
Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.
Additionally from the PRD site, on the Magic page, the Conjuration subschool, Creation.
Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates. If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence.
(Emphasis mine.)
Such 'assembling' magic would be suppressed while in an anti-magic field. Just like never mixing a spoonful of baking soda with vinegar will not cause bubbles to form, or leaving a bookcase from Ikea in the box will make it so you don't have a bookcase. The magical effect will never form in an anti-magic field.
As for buffs and such, I cannot find a rationale in the Rules As Written why they would not work. Because the only exception to the AMF-magic interaction (in the spell description) is to clarify that instantaneous Conjuration: Creation effects, after being cast, are non-magical; I must conclude that while cheesy and illogical, the rules allow you to cast buffs in an AMF and have them work when the field ends.
I would houserule it, because I keep in mind that there are plenty of areas where the rules are, quite honestly, screwed up. Mounted combat doesn't work by RAW see this thread for the reasoning behind that statement.
That is why there are DMs, rule 0 exists, and there is errata/FAQ's. Rules don't always work, so you have to be flexible enough to change them on the fly. Which is one major reason I'm never going to DM or play in Pathfinder Society. You have to adhere to RAW too heavily. As much as I like abusing RAW loopholes and generally being a min-maxing bastard with occasional sojourns into munchkinville, the game becomes much less fun when the rules are nothing but a waste of paper and ink if RAW is used, or they're internally inconsistent.
"11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required."
Huh.
I think that is another way of saying "really? use common sense people". I have seen it before. I am not saying I agree with every case, but that is my interpretation for it.
Many times though I do agree. :)
wraithstrike, respectfully, I have a different interpretation.
I was not using the politically correct interpretation. That would be "the rules are clear enough that we should not have to expand on the subject".
If you don't agree with that(the nice version) then I would like your interpretation.
|
"11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required."
Huh.
I think that is another way of saying "really? use common sense people". I have seen it before. I am not saying I agree with every case, but that is my interpretation for it.
Many times though I do agree. :)
Trouble is, it simply intensifies the debate.
If they won't specify which camp has the correct interpretation, then both camps will assume they are the ones being supported by the staff, as using their 'common sense' to come to the 'obvious' One True Interpretation.
"11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required."
Huh.
I think that is another way of saying "really? use common sense people". I have seen it before. I am not saying I agree with every case, but that is my interpretation for it.
Many times though I do agree. :)Trouble is, it simply intensifies the debate.
If they won't specify which camp has the correct interpretation, then both camps will assume they are the ones being supported by the staff, as using their 'common sense' to come to the 'obvious' One True Interpretation.
I agree with that in many cases, but in some cases I also understand. The first time I noticed it was in a debate I was in about whether or not you could make attacks of opportunities if the attacker was outside of your threat range. Even though the feat "strike back" was made for this specific purpose people still tried to argue that the rules allowed for it without the feat.
And so the discussion will continue...
And why?
Had it been so much harder for the Devs to throw a quick "You can't cast spells at all while in an AMF." or "Spells that effect a target outside the AMF work." in this thread instead of "No response required."?
Seriously...? -.-''
On topic: I really don't know which side I'm on at this. Both sound reasonable to me.
And so the discussion will continue...
And why?
Had it been so much harder for the Devs to throw a quick "You can't cast spells at all while in an AMF." or "Spells that effect a target outside the AMF work." in this thread instead of "No response required."?
Seriously...? -.-''
On topic: I really don't know which side I'm on at this. Both sound reasonable to me.
If the devs answer every silly question it will be the norm for them to do so. Sometimes the answer is right in the book, but people won't give up. I have seen arguments for people trying to get sorcerers to use wizard spellbooks, cast spells 9th level spells at first level, and under the most liberal reading one could imagine combined with wearing blinders then sure, but the chance of it being the correct meaning was astronomically small.
On the other hand sometimes it is just better to answer the question. I came from 3.5 and I have had time to correct most of my rule misreadings, but if you are new to the game, and you read certain rules literally it can be hard to interpret the RAI version.
In the end they have to decide is this is a case of a rule that could be better written or is someone just being obtuse.
PS:I am not saying this is a silly question. I would have thought so before this thread though.
PS2:I completely misread that, but I like my post so I will let it stand.
PS3:Dragon's breaths are magical since they are SU so they can't harm whoever is in the AM, nor can a dragon in an AM use his breath. In short the AMF affects it.
- cast Dominate Person on the Wizard, then wait AMF to end and start giving orders to the Wizard
- same with any other long-term spell (Charm Person, Charm Monster, Dominate Monster, and so on)
- cast a spell THROUGH the AMF and affecting all creatures behind the area (Lightning Bolt, Cone of Cold, Fireball) - like a Globe of Invulnerability (which however specifically says that a spell can pass through it)1 and 2 are possible, and clearly stated in the text to be allowed. 3 I'm not sure what I would rule.
Actually, by the strict RAW reading of the spell...
"An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell's duration."Thus, if you cast a fireball, and one square of the fireball overlaps the AMF, the spell is being cast into the AMF and the entire fireball is suppressed. The RAW of the spell say that the spell is suppressed, and doesn't allow for partial suppression of AoE spells.
Charender's last post was in 2015. He's probably not going to see this response nor respond to you.
To answer Tyalis‘s questions and rebut some of their misconceptions anyways…
1) a spell cast inside an AMF will still be successfully cast, but the spell will be suppressed regardless of if the target is inside or outside of the AMF. AMF is quite clear in its wording on this. “An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it.” this means that if YOU are in the AMF your spells ARE suppressed, period. If the spell has a duration it starts ticking down, and when you leave the AMF the spell effect takes hold.
2) a fireball passing through an AMF would be suppressed in the square it enters the AMF. It would not continue to move along its trajectory while suppressed, it would simply wink out the same as a summoned creature. When the AMF is no longer affecting that square the fireball will immediate resume its course.
2.b) It could be argued that since the fireball has an instantaneous duration and is NOT conjuration, the moment it enters the AMF it would cease to exist as the duration would expire before the AMF can be removed.
3) as stated above, the fireball would be suppressed as soon as it enters the AMF. The fireball simply cannot detonate inside an AMF. Depending on how your table rules the fireballs duration within the AMF it might detonate when the AMF is removed or it might simply expire and never have the opportunity to detonate. I lean towards the duration expires inside the AMF.
4) you are correct in how a fireball overlapping but not centered in an AMF would work. Fireball is Evocation and a spread. This means the flames are in fact magical and it can be obstructed. An AMF would be an obstruction.
Regarding something else that was brought up multiple times in the topic before though…
Conjuration spells cast inside AMF… instantaneous conjuration spells result in a non-magical substance but still use magic to either create it or bring it there. If cast into an AMF these spells are completely unaffected by the AMF but if cast inside an AMF they fail to produce anything because the magic facilitating the objects creation or summoning was suppressed and the duration expired moments after casting.
Side Note: if an instantaneous conjuration is created or summoned at a target location and not propelled to that location from the caster, the spell will fail to produce anything if either the target location or the caster is within the AMF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am curious what this "Player's Handbook 3.5e" is, and how it is a source of rule information for Pathfinder.
Probably a translation error on my part as it is the core book for player in DnD 3.5, but I have it in another langage and did not bother check its original name before writing.
No, the name is correct. Java Man's point was that it is not a rulebook for Pathfinder. Indeed, nothing in any 3.5 book is part of the Pathfinder RAW. 3.5 rules can, on rare occation, help to fix disfunctional PF rules, but they should not be the prime source of information.
If you don't have access to a (n English) PF book, you should look things up on aonprd.com instead of using a 3.5 source. Here is the Fireball spell.
That's easy - Read the Open Gaming License(OGL). A reference to it is on every Paizo text product.
Your smugness is ill placed. "You may use any authorized version of this license to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License." There is nothing in the OGL that in any way makes different works released under it affect one another.