paizo.com Recent Posts in Can you cast within an antimagic field?paizo.com Recent Posts in Can you cast within an antimagic field?2012-11-15T23:11:33Z2012-11-15T23:11:33ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?Derklordhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#912023-01-07T20:00:52Z2023-01-07T20:00:52Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Tyalis wrote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>No, the name is correct. Java Man's point was that it is <i>not</i> a rulebook for Pathfinder. Indeed, nothing in any 3.5 book is part of the Pathfinder RAW. 3.5 rules can, on <i>rare</i> occation, help to fix disfunctional PF rules, but they should not be the prime source of information.
<p>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. <b><a href="https://aonprd.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Fireball" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Here is the Fireball spell.</a></b></p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Azothath wrote:</div><blockquote>That's easy - Read the Open Gaming License(OGL). A reference to it is on <b>every</b> Paizo text product.</blockquote><p>Your smugness is ill placed. "You may use any authorized version of this license to copy, <b>modify</b> 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.Tyalis wrote: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...Derklord2023-01-07T20:00:52ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?Azothathhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#902023-01-07T17:42:30Z2023-01-07T17:20:10Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Java Man wrote:</div><blockquote> I am curious what this "Player's Handbook 3.5e" is, and how it is a source of rule information for Pathfinder. </blockquote><p>That's easy - Read the Open Gaming License(OGL). A reference to it is on <b>every</b> Paizo text product.
<p>yes - the poster did get the usual source wrong but it's a good historical reference and at rare times a source (this instance is not one of them). The Magic section is a source of general confusion and consternation for many players and GMs.</p>
<p>If you have questions about RAW or most rules read the PF source material. It is better laid out and easier to understand than a parsed text version on the Pathfinder Reference Document(PRD) at <a href="https://aonprd.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Archives of Nethys</a>(AoN).
<br />
Webpage translators will work on the PRD website but sometimes translations are tricky and so it might be best to consult an official translation. Libraries carry many books so check with your local branch or the Internet Archive.</p>Java Man wrote:I am curious what this "Player's Handbook 3.5e" is, and how it is a source of rule information for Pathfinder.
That's easy - Read the Open Gaming License(OGL). A reference to it is on every Paizo text product. yes - the poster did get the usual source wrong but it's a good historical reference and at rare times a source (this instance is not one of them). The Magic section is a source of general confusion and consternation for many players and GMs.
If you have questions about...Azothath2023-01-07T17:20:10ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?Tyalishttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#892023-01-07T09:45:20Z2023-01-07T09:45:20Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Java Man wrote:</div><blockquote> I am curious what this "Player's Handbook 3.5e" is, and how it is a source of rule information for Pathfinder. </blockquote><p>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.
</p>
My bad.</p>Java Man wrote: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.
My bad.Tyalis2023-01-07T09:45:20ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?Java Manhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#882023-01-05T19:24:13Z2023-01-05T18:38:46Z<p>I am curious what this "Player's Handbook 3.5e" is, and how it is a source of rule information for Pathfinder.</p>I am curious what this "Player's Handbook 3.5e" is, and how it is a source of rule information for Pathfinder.Java Man2023-01-05T18:38:46ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?Chell Raighnhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#872023-01-05T17:33:38Z2023-01-05T17:13:18Z<p>To answer Tyalis‘s questions and rebut some of their misconceptions anyways…</p>
<p>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. <i>“An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect <b>used within</b>, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it.”</i> 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.</p>
<p>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.
<br />
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Regarding something else that was brought up multiple times in the topic before though…</p>
<p>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.
<br />
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.</p>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...Chell Raighn2023-01-05T17:13:18ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?Ryze Kujahttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#862023-01-05T16:34:48Z2023-01-05T16:34:48Z<p>Charender's last post was in 2015. He's probably not going to see this response nor respond to you.</p>Charender's last post was in 2015. He's probably not going to see this response nor respond to you.Ryze Kuja2023-01-05T16:34:48ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?Tyalishttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#852023-01-04T21:46:42Z2023-01-04T21:46:42Z<p>Sorry for digging this many years later, but I cannot ignore this.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Charender wrote:</div><blockquote><p> (...)
</p>
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.
<br />
</blockquote><p>You got the AMF part right, but let's consider the FireBall spell description in the Player's Handbook 3.5e :
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.</blockquote><p>Nothing to tell about that part.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst.</blockquote><p>So the first step is to spot and point your finger to the center of the fireball area of effect that you must be able to see.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit</blockquote><p>Then, you produce, on the tip of your finger, a mini fireball, hence the creation of the fireball is on the square the caster stands.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point.</blockquote><p>Then the mini fireball goes from the finger to the center of the aoe zone and must stay unhindred.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>(An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.</blockquote><p>If you miss for any reason, the mini fireball detonate early and the aoe is that much closer.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.</blockquote><p>It implies the fireball effect grows from the reached point outward until stopped or to max distance from the center.
<p>In short :
<br />
1. Create the fireball as a pea on the tip of the caster's finger (same square)
<br />
2. Go straight to destination but might be hindred or missed on special conditions by physical means
<br />
3. Detonate on impact.</p>
<p>I see 4 ways it can interract with AMF :</p>
<p>1. Casting in or out of AMF ?
<br />
Obviously, when cast inside the AMF, as an instantaneous spell, the "pea sized fireball" never forms. The spell is forfeit.
<br />
If cast right outside of the AMF, the fireball is formed.
<br />
Wich means the caster must be outside of AMF to even form a fireball.</p>
<p>2. Pass through AMF ?
<br />
When passing through AMF, the fireball is suppressed but not dispelled. Meaning it disappear to the eye while entering, and reappear on the other side.
<br />
I like to see it as the AMF blocking the effects of the weave on the plane, and the spell continuing its course on the weave. It is, however, my personal interpretation.
<br />
Some can argue that the fireball cannot continue to advance through the AMF since it blinked out of existance, and that one must wait the end of the AMF to see it reappear and continue its course. I am not of that opinion, but it is up to debate, I believe.</p>
<p>3. Detonate in AMF ?
<br />
If the center of the aoe is in the AMF, and we consider the fireball continue its way through the weave (is able to pass through AMF without waiting for it to subside), then it is suppressed while it detonate, negating the aoe, even if some of it is out of the AMF. The base for that is it detonate on impact, like true physical impact between the mini fireball and the center of the zone (or physical obstacle).</p>
<p>4. AMF in range when detonate ?
<br />
Let's now imagine the center is right outside the AMF. The mini fireball reach it and detonate.
<br />
The magical fire of the fireball goes outwards untill it met an obstacle that don't break or untill it reach the maximum distance from the center.
<br />
The magical fire that goes through the AMF alone is suppressed, not the fire that goes from the center to the other directions.
<br />
Some creatures occupying 2b2 squares that are partially in the AMF, and partially out (at least a square out of AMF that is still in fireball AOE) will be affected normally. If completely inside the AMF or the square out of AMF are out of the AOE, then the creature remain unaffected.</p>
<p>The premice for all this is that the fire itself is magic.
<br />
While it is possible to argue any of those points, it is clearly unadequate to say that if even a square of the aoe is in the AMF, the whole AOE is supressed. It is much more subtle.</p>
<p>Possible discussions are :
<br />
- is the fire magical in nature, or just magically created ?
<br />
I would rule magical in nature, at least due to the explosion size.
<br />
- is the moving of the [suppressed] fireball delayed/imaired by the AMF ?
<br />
I would rule not, but I don't know if I am missing something.
<br />
It would not be if you consider the moving as physical moving or as moving deconnected from the plane through the weave until the destination, with the fireball being the only manifestation of magic truely in the plane (thus only the fire can be negated, not the moving of it)
<br />
- is the explosion of the fireball truely negated in AMF ?
<br />
I would rule yes as the fire is not present, but if you consider the explosion of the fireball as the mouvement of it, and rule it is not physically triggered (which seems opposed to the text, but is at least debatable) then the fire could spread out of the AMF while the effect of the detonation in the AMF are suppressed.
<br />
Seems very unlikely, though.</p>
<p>I may have missed some point, however, concerning negating the whole aoe for one square in AMF, I rest my case.</p>
<p>(sorry if some sentences are not that clear, english is not my first language... I tried to be clear, but have no time to reread the whole thing now...)</p>Sorry for digging this many years later, but I cannot ignore this.
Charender wrote:(...)
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.
You got the AMF part right, but let's consider the FireBall spell description in the Player's Handbook 3.5e : Quote:A fireball spell is an...Tyalis2023-01-04T21:46:42ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?Charenderhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#842011-10-31T21:59:42Z2011-10-31T21:59:42Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Coriat wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote><p>- cast Dominate Person on the Wizard, then wait AMF to end and start giving orders to the Wizard
</p>
- same with any other long-term spell (Charm Person, Charm Monster, Dominate Monster, and so on)
<br />
- 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)</blockquote><p>1 and 2 are possible, and clearly stated in the text to be allowed. 3 I'm not sure what I would rule.
<p></blockquote><p>Actually, by the strict RAW reading of the spell...
</p>
"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."</p>
<p>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.</p>Coriat wrote:Quote:- 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...Charender2011-10-31T21:59:42ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?wraithstrike (alias of concerro)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#832011-10-31T16:40:12Z2011-10-31T16:40:12Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cyberwolf2xs wrote:</div><blockquote><p> And so the discussion will continue...</p>
<p>And why? </p>
<p>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."?</p>
<p>Seriously...? -.-''</p>
<p>On topic: I really don't know which side I'm on at this. Both sound reasonable to me. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>PS:I am not saying this is a silly question. I would have thought so before this thread though. </p>
<p>PS2:I completely misread that, but I like my post so I will let it stand.</p>
<p>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.</p>Cyberwolf2xs wrote: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...wraithstrike (alias of concerro)2011-10-31T16:40:12ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?LazarXhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#822011-10-31T16:12:29Z2011-10-31T16:12:29Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">vip00 wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">BigNorseWolf wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Not really, because if the dragons head is outside of the AMF then the party can disintegrate it. </p>
<p>If the head is inside, then the area directly infront of his face is impervious to his supernatural ability: it is blocked directly at its face and doesn't go any further.
<br />
</blockquote><p>The discussion above seems to come to a conclusion that the area of the spell that overlaps with the AMF is "suppressed" but that magic outside the AMF is not affected. This would allow the dragon to breathe, with the first 10' of his breath weapon being negated, but the rest functioning normally.
<p>Am I misreading it then? </blockquote><p>I don't think Dragons breath is affected by an AMF.vip00 wrote:BigNorseWolf wrote:Not really, because if the dragons head is outside of the AMF then the party can disintegrate it.
If the head is inside, then the area directly infront of his face is impervious to his supernatural ability: it is blocked directly at its face and doesn't go any further.
The discussion above seems to come to a conclusion that the area of the spell that overlaps with the AMF is "suppressed" but that magic outside the AMF is not affected. This would allow the...LazarX2011-10-31T16:12:29ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?Cyberwolf2xshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#812011-10-31T13:07:00Z2011-10-31T13:07:00Z<p>And so the discussion will continue...</p>
<p>And why? </p>
<p>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."?</p>
<p>Seriously...? -.-''</p>
<p>On topic: I really don't know which side I'm on at this. Both sound reasonable to me.</p>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.Cyberwolf2xs2011-10-31T13:07:00ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?wraithstrike (alias of concerro)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#802011-10-30T19:34:56Z2011-10-30T19:34:56Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Snorter wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Axl wrote:</div><blockquote><p> "<i>11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.</i>"</p>
<p>Huh.
<br />
</blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">wraithstrike wrote:</div><blockquote><p> 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.
</p>
Many times though I do agree. :) </blockquote><p>Trouble is, it simply intensifies the debate.
<p>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. </blockquote><p>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.Snorter wrote:Axl wrote:"11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required."
Huh.
wraithstrike wrote: 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...wraithstrike (alias of concerro)2011-10-30T19:34:56ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?Snorterhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#792011-10-30T19:17:42Z2011-10-30T19:17:42Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Axl wrote:</div><blockquote><p> "<i>11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.</i>"</p>
<p>Huh.
<br />
</blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">wraithstrike wrote:</div><blockquote><p> 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.
</p>
Many times though I do agree. :) </blockquote><p>Trouble is, it simply intensifies the debate.
<p>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.</p>Axl wrote:"11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required."
Huh.
wraithstrike wrote: 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...Snorter2011-10-30T19:17:42ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?wraithstrike (alias of concerro)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#782011-10-30T18:42:30Z2011-10-30T18:42:30Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Axl wrote:</div><blockquote><p> wraithstrike, respectfully, I have a different interpretation.
</p>
</blockquote><p>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".
<p>If you don't agree with that(the nice version) then I would like your interpretation.</p>Axl wrote: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.wraithstrike (alias of concerro)2011-10-30T18:42:30ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?Axlhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#772011-10-30T18:40:08Z2011-10-30T18:40:08Z<p>wraithstrike, respectfully, I have a different interpretation.</p>wraithstrike, respectfully, I have a different interpretation.Axl2011-10-30T18:40:08ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?Kthulhuhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#762011-10-30T18:38:38Z2011-10-30T18:38:38Z<p>You can cast spells all day long within an antimagic field. I wouldn't suggest it, since it's an absolute waste, but if you're really dumb enough to want to do it, go for it.</p>You can cast spells all day long within an antimagic field. I wouldn't suggest it, since it's an absolute waste, but if you're really dumb enough to want to do it, go for it.Kthulhu2011-10-30T18:38:38ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?wraithstrike (alias of concerro)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#752011-10-30T18:35:44Z2011-10-30T18:35:44Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Axl wrote:</div><blockquote><p> "<i>11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.</i>"</p>
<p>Huh.
<br />
</blockquote><p>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.
</p>
Many times though I do agree. :)</p>Axl wrote:"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 (alias of concerro)2011-10-30T18:35:44ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?Axlhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#742011-10-30T18:31:57Z2011-10-30T18:31:57Z<p>"<i>11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.</i>"</p>
<p>Huh.</p>"11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required."
Huh.Axl2011-10-30T18:31:57ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?TomeWyrmhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#732011-10-29T17:06:42Z2011-10-29T17:06:42Z<p>There's a problem with HansiIsMyGod's interpretation.
<br />
Instantaneous does NOT mean "takes no time".
<br />
Only non-actions in D&D take absolutely 0 time to perform.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Pathfinder Reference Document wrote:</div><blockquote><p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</blockquote><p>Additionally from the PRD site, on the Magic page, the Conjuration subschool, Creation.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Pathfinder Reference Document wrote:</div><blockquote>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. <b>If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic.</b> It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence.</blockquote><p>(Emphasis mine.)
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 <a href="http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187351" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">see this thread</a> for the reasoning behind that statement.</p>
<p>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.</p>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.
Pathfinder Reference Document wrote: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...TomeWyrm2011-10-29T17:06:42ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?Kain Darkwindhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#722011-05-08T19:50:35Z2011-05-08T19:50:35Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sylvanite wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Coriat wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Bobson wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Will it help? The first post is up to "7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Not an error."... </blockquote><p>Probably not, the wording is from way back in 3.x anyway (3.0, even, I think), not a PF specific change.
<p>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). </blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>Sylvanite wrote:Coriat wrote: Bobson wrote:
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...Kain Darkwind2011-05-08T19:50:35ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?Sylvanitehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#712011-05-06T06:40:51Z2011-05-06T06:40:51Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Coriat wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Bobson wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Will it help? The first post is up to "7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Not an error."... </blockquote><p>Probably not, the wording is from way back in 3.x anyway (3.0, even, I think), not a PF specific change.
<p>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). </blockquote><p>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.Coriat wrote:Bobson wrote:
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...Sylvanite2011-05-06T06:40:51ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?Coriathttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#702011-05-06T01:51:48Z2011-05-06T01:51:48Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Bobson wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Will it help? The first post is up to "7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Not an error."... </blockquote><p>Probably not, the wording is from way back in 3.x anyway (3.0, even, I think), not a PF specific change.
<p>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).</p>Bobson wrote: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...Coriat2011-05-06T01:51:48ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?Bobsonhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#692011-05-05T20:43:08Z2011-05-05T20:43:08Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sylvanite wrote:</div><blockquote><p> 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.)</p>
<p>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. </blockquote><p>Will it help? The first post is up to "7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Not an error."...Sylvanite wrote: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...Bobson2011-05-05T20:43:08ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?Sylvanitehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#682011-05-05T20:03:28Z2011-05-05T20:03:28Z<p>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.)</p>
<p>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.</p>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....Sylvanite2011-05-05T20:03:28ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can you cast within an antimagic field?HansiIsMyGodhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luk4&page=2?Can-you-cast-within-an-antimagic-field#672011-05-05T17:26:31Z2011-05-05T17:26:31Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Bobson wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
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... </blockquote><p>That sentence is ok I think. The sentence under that one is causing all the confusion. :)Bobson wrote: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...HansiIsMyGod2011-05-05T17:26:31Z