Can you cast within an antimagic field?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

14 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It would seem per the spell description, that you can cast spells while within it. I feel this is completely against the theme of the spell, but perhaps I'm wrong.

What prevents a caster from using buff spells or summoning monsters into the antimagic field? (obviously, their durations would begin to expire immediately and their effects would only take place once the AMF was gone.)


"... 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.

Summoned creatures of any type and incorporeal undead wink out if they enter an antimagic field. They reappear in the same spot once the field goes away. Time spent winked out counts normally against the duration of the conjuration that is maintaining the creature."

The summoned creatures would wink out so they would never make it to the caster, and time winked out counts against their duration.
The spell does not specifically say you can't cast spells while in it, but since the spells don't function it seems the intent is for the spell to never go off.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Kain Darkwind wrote:

It would seem per the spell description, that you can cast spells while within it. I feel this is completely against the theme of the spell, but perhaps I'm wrong.

What prevents a caster from using buff spells or summoning monsters into the antimagic field? (obviously, their durations would begin to expire immediately and their effects would only take place once the AMF was gone.)

To answer your question literally.... you can cast to your hearts content. But your spells will be suppressed while you're inside the AMF. In the case of spells that have immediate effects like fireball, they're simply wasted. Such casting of course would still provoke normally.


The intent seems to be that you can't cast inside the AM field, but the DM could rule that the spell is cast and will work on ce the field is gone. If you're the DM I recommend against, that is just unnecessary extra working for you. If you're a player, why would you want to cast a spell that normally lasts, say, 10 rounds and only have it actually work 2 or 3? Even if you can see some benefit keep in mind 'What the PC can do, the NPC can do' you spring your trap and next thing you know every caster you face will do the exact same thing right back at you, probably in encounters designed to make it even more effective.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

No one needs to worry about my players breaking my game, or me somehow not being able to get back at them with the power of the DM. No one needs to concern themselves with 'why would a player rob himself of a few rounds of a spell?' I understand completely there are drawbacks and such.

What I'm curious about is whether or not a wizard can buff himself up while in a beholder's eye cone. Whether he can cast dominate monster on said beholder (or another foe within the cone) and have that spell take effect when the cone is dropped. Etc.

I would think that AMF would prevent, flat out, spellcasting within its area. However, a careful reading of the RAW suggests I'm wrong.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

wow... that's impressive.

By strict reading of the rules, you are correct, nothing prevents the wizard from casting a dominate person on the beholder. In fact, from what I can see, nothing prevents the dominate person spell from working at all - the beholder is not in his own eye-cone (his other eyes till work), so there's no anti-magic field to keep the spell from taking effect immediately.

I don't see anything wrong with using the (apparently very common, if rarely recognized) house rule that being in an anti-magic field also suppresses spellcasting ability. I think the vast majority of players and GMs have been operating this way for the last 10 years or so, but you are absolutely correct - it is, technically, a house rule.

I think you should have a cookie or something for figuring this out.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'd go with that as well. I generally rule that no magic can be activated inside an AMF field, spells that are operating are suppressed and no new spells can be cast. The caster will be tipped off off to that if he requests and succeeds at a Knowledge Arcana check, but otherwise he's going to find out the hard way.


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.

-this would imply that line of effect is blocked to the beholder if you're standing in the eyebeam.


I would say that a person standing in an antimagic field doesn't have line of effect to any creatures also inside of or outside of the field, making casting spells on them a moot point.


cwslyclgh wrote:
I would say that a person standing in an antimagic field doesn't have line of effect to any creatures also inside of or outside of the field, making casting spells on them a moot point.

Round 0 (i.e. at any time before): Antimagic field

Round 1: Delayed blast fireball
Round 2: same
Round 3: same
Round 4: same
Round 5: dismiss and teleport away.

That's a pretty edge case, though, since most things could just enter the anitmagic field and cut you up. It'd be really powerful against incoporeal undead, though, if they don't realize the field's there. As soon as they reappear, they explode.


I as a DM don't allow casting in an antimagic field, mostly for one reason. Dragons. A dragon sitting in an AMF with DR 20/magic is all but invulnerable for the duration of the AMF and letting him cast and/or use his breath weapon during that time makes the encounter unnecessarily ugly imo.


cwslyclgh wrote:
I would say that a person standing in an antimagic field doesn't have line of effect to any creatures also inside of or outside of the field, making casting spells on them a moot point.

I don't think you can say that AMF blocks line of effect (although it was my first instinct too to say that, as one of Kain's players), because of this line

Quote:
An antimagic field suppresses any spell or effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it

If you can cast a spell into the AMF (which sure is suppressed for the duration of AMF, but you can) then it isn't blocking line of effect.

And the "used within" part makes me think that being able to, say, cast Mirror Image on yourself, and have it take effect when the AMF goes away, is working as intended.

Liberty's Edge

Alright, I think we're all on the same page.

According to RAW (the Rules As Written), a mage can technically cast spells into an antimagic field, and they go off more. or less normally (get suppressed, rather than countered)

That said and acknowledged, everyone in this thread agrees that's completely freaking absurd, and also agrees that the spell should flat out negate/auto-counter any spell cast by, on, or in anything inside an anti-magic field.


Well, not only RAW, but Rules as Intended, too, unless they wrote flat-out the opposite of what was intended. The wording seems explicitly designed to allow spells to be cast inside, or into, an AMF, and that they're merely suppressed, and it's wording that is supported several times elsewhere in the text of the spell.

I'll admit it does seem strange to me. But I have a hard time reading it as a wording mistake leading to an unintended RAW.


Coriat wrote:

Well, not only RAW, but Rules as Intended, too, unless they wrote flat-out the opposite of what was intended. The wording seems explicitly designed to allow spells to be cast inside, or into, an AMF, and that they're merely suppressed, and it's wording that is supported several times elsewhere in the text of the spell.

I'll admit it does seem strange to me. But I have a hard time reading it as a wording mistake leading to an unintended RAW.

so what about the situation I proposed? A dragon casts AMF on himself. Can he then use his breath weapon (Supernatural) to breathe on opponents outside of his 10' AMF radius? In contrast any spells they cast on him are suppressed because they enter the AMF?

That's gonna make for some toasty PCs rather fast!


Quote:


so what about the situation I proposed? A dragon casts AMF on himself. Can he then use his breath weapon (Supernatural) to breathe on opponents outside of his 10' AMF radius? In contrast any spells they cast on him are suppressed because they enter the AMF?

That's gonna make for some toasty PCs rather fast!

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.


Kain Darkwind wrote:

No one needs to worry about my players breaking my game, or me somehow not being able to get back at them with the power of the DM. No one needs to concern themselves with 'why would a player rob himself of a few rounds of a spell?' I understand completely there are drawbacks and such.

What I'm curious about is whether or not a wizard can buff himself up while in a beholder's eye cone. Whether he can cast dominate monster on said beholder (or another foe within the cone) and have that spell take effect when the cone is dropped. Etc.

I would think that AMF would prevent, flat out, spellcasting within its area. However, a careful reading of the RAW suggests I'm wrong.

Spell that require an immediate save would seem to not work since the save is called for right then. Since the person did not fail the save due to not having to make it it would seem the spell would expire. Spell such as buffs that can be cast directly on the caster could probably be cast by RAW, but would begin to expire by the rules.

RAW nothing prevents the tactic of casting spells, but I am sure it is against the spirit of the rules. I am also think that certain spells as mentioned above would autofail even under RAW.


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 dragon to breathe, with the first 10' of his breath weapon being negated, but the rest functioning normally.

Am I misreading it then?


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 dragon to breathe, with the first 10' of his breath weapon being negated, but the rest functioning normally.

Am I misreading it then?

I have been thinking about such a scenario, and after a re-reading and some time for thought, I think it would not work. Going back to the line:

Quote:
An antimagic field suppresses any spell or effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it.

and focusing on "used within" this time, the breath weapon is clearly used within the area, and thus should be suppressed. Nothing seems to indicate that it such effects are only partly suppressed; as long as the dragon's head is within the AMF, then he's using that magical effect within the AMF and the effect is suppressed period. Since breathing fire is instantaneous, that's that.

Similarly, I think a caster inside AMF who cast at a target outside of the AMF is still covered under "used within" and thus the spell is suppressed and does not take effect unless the AMF goes away. No fireballing targets outside the AMF. But you can buff yourself, or someone else, and it will take effect if AMF goes away and the duration is still on, or if you later move out of the AMF.


Coriat wrote:

I have been thinking about such a scenario, and after a re-reading and some time for thought, I think it would not work. Going back to the line:

Quote:
An antimagic field suppresses any spell or effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it.

and focusing on "used within" this time, the breath weapon is clearly used within the area, and thus should be suppressed. Nothing seems to indicate that it such effects are only partly suppressed; as long as the dragon's head is within the AMF, then he's using that magical effect within the AMF and the effect is suppressed period. Since breathing fire is instantaneous, that's that.

Similarly, I think a caster inside AMF who cast at a target outside of the AMF is still covered under "used within" and thus the spell is suppressed and does not take effect unless the AMF goes away. No fireballing targets outside the AMF. But you can buff yourself, or someone else, and it will take effect if AMF goes away and the duration is still on, or if you later move out of the AMF.

This reading seems to make sense as per RAW. I think as a DM I would still disallow any sort of casting inside an AMF to avoid potential shenanigans.


vip00 wrote:
Coriat wrote:

I have been thinking about such a scenario, and after a re-reading and some time for thought, I think it would not work. Going back to the line:

Quote:
An antimagic field suppresses any spell or effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it.

and focusing on "used within" this time, the breath weapon is clearly used within the area, and thus should be suppressed. Nothing seems to indicate that it such effects are only partly suppressed; as long as the dragon's head is within the AMF, then he's using that magical effect within the AMF and the effect is suppressed period. Since breathing fire is instantaneous, that's that.

Similarly, I think a caster inside AMF who cast at a target outside of the AMF is still covered under "used within" and thus the spell is suppressed and does not take effect unless the AMF goes away. No fireballing targets outside the AMF. But you can buff yourself, or someone else, and it will take effect if AMF goes away and the duration is still on, or if you later move out of the AMF.

This reading seems to make sense as per RAW. I think as a DM I would still disallow any sort of casting inside an AMF to avoid potential shenanigans.

I agree with both parts of that.


vip00 wrote:
A dragon sitting in an AMF with DR 20/magic is all but invulnerable for the duration of the AMF

DR X/magic is supernatural, and therefore turned off in an AMF.


AvalonXQ wrote:
DR X/magic is supernatural, and therefore turned off in an AMF.

How do you figure? I just see DR listed as (Ex or Su) in the glossary with no indication which one dragons have. The DM is free to rule that a dragon's DR is EX.


I think somewhere it states that DR/damage type (bashing, piercing, or slashing) is Ex and DR/anything else is Su, but I don't know where. It might be a 3.5 FAQ answer.


vip00 wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
DR X/magic is supernatural, and therefore turned off in an AMF.
How do you figure? I just see DR listed as (Ex or Su) in the glossary with no indication which one dragons have. The DM is free to rule that a dragon's DR is EX.

3.5 made it clear that the DRs that require magic to overcome are supernatural DRs. You are right that the Pathfinder rules do not appear to have made the same clarification.


I think indeed that it was a 3.5 thing. It seems to make sense for most things, I just tend to think that a dragon's DR is part of it physical attributes so it's EX, but obviously that's just my interpretation.

On a side note canceling supernatural abilities makes some really weird things happen. Air elementals can no longer fly for example... wth? They're made of AIR!


Quote:

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.

Am I misreading it then?

You're not misreading it. I disagree with it. The word "impervious to" does not, to me, imply that some magic can pass through it to the other side. A dragon breathing at a beholder with its eye open wouldn't have a line of fire that didn't exist at it's mouth but did exist behind the beholder... impervious means that the breath can't go through. It's stopped at the dragons mouth as surely as if the breath went into a brick wall.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


You're not misreading it. I disagree with it. The word "impervious to" does not, to me, imply that some magic can pass through it to the other side. A dragon breathing at a beholder with its eye open wouldn't have a line of fire that didn't exist at it's mouth but did exist behind the beholder... impervious means that the breath can't go through. It's stopped at the dragons mouth as surely as if the breath went into a brick wall.

I agree with BigNorseWolf. I've always read that AMF (and similar abilities, like the Anti-Magic Cone of the Beholder) blocks line of effect to spells, otherwise the ability would be almost useless.

Think of it: the Wizard casts AMF and stands into a 10-ft wide corridor. If AMF would not block Line of Effect, we could:

- 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)

A Beholder would be SERIOUSLY weakened by this reading; any spell could still affect it - even if the Wizard would cast them inside the AM Cone - because they could, apparently, manifest (without effect) and 'pass through' the AM area... and smack it into the eye or the body (where the AM cone cannot protect it).

Not mentioning the fact that a Wizard could still cast all his spells through his own AMF and affect his enemies - hey, the target is outside the AMF, so why not ?

Sorry but I would never use it that way.


vip00 wrote:

I think indeed that it was a 3.5 thing. It seems to make sense for most things, I just tend to think that a dragon's DR is part of it physical attributes so it's EX, but obviously that's just my interpretation.

On a side note canceling supernatural abilities makes some really weird things happen. Air elementals can no longer fly for example... wth? They're made of AIR!

No it is not randomly decided by the DM. It depends on the DR type in question. The same 3.5 rules apply. Paizo just likes to cut things out so we can FAQ them, and get the same answer as the 3.5 ruling. It is becoming somewhat annoying.


The Core Rulebook says that DR is Supernatural (with no mention of extraordinary DR)... then the Bestiary comes along and says DR is SU or EX... so I guess it depends on which book the GM thinks takes precedence.


The Wraith wrote:

I agree with BigNorseWolf. I've always read that AMF (and similar abilities, like the Anti-Magic Cone of the Beholder) blocks line of effect to spells, otherwise the ability would be almost useless.

Think of it: the Wizard casts AMF and stands into a 10-ft wide corridor. If AMF would not block Line of Effect, we could:

AMF can't block line of effect, because it clearly allows spells to be "cast into" the AMF and only suppressed, not dispelled.

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 allowed. 3 I'm not sure what I would rule.

Quote:
A Beholder would be SERIOUSLY weakened by this reading; any spell could still affect it - even if the Wizard would cast them inside the AM Cone

This one isn't legit, though, because spells used within an AMF are suppressed until the field is gone.. Even if the target is outside, casting a spell inside the AMF means that it's suppressed (though not dispelled)

Quote:
Not mentioning the fact that a Wizard could still cast all his spells through his own AMF and affect his enemies - hey, the target is outside the AMF, so why not ?

The bolded part should do it:

Quote:
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.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes I'm absolutely dumbfounded by how people look at the RAW looking for any small bit of ambiguous wording to avoid blatantly obvious RAI.


an amusing scenario come to mind, according to this new interpretation:

A powerfull wizard is locked in a permanent anti-magic cell, he spends his days casting magical traps \ delayed blast spells (permanent) etc.

on the day he get's loose, he finds a way to remove the anti-magic affect from afar i.e. press the detonation button:

all this pent up magical energy he cast there would explode like a mini nuke :)

Shadow Lodge

Ironballs wrote:

an amusing scenario come to mind, according to this new interpretation:

A powerfull wizard is locked in a permanent anti-magic cell, he spends his days casting magical traps \ delayed blast spells (permanent) etc.

on the day he get's loose, he finds a way to remove the anti-magic affect from afar i.e. press the detonation button:

all this pent up magical energy he cast there would explode like a mini nuke :)

One problem with your scenario...I doubt his captors let him keep his spellbook. A sorcerer would be much more capable of doing this. However...

More likely scenario: On the day of his release, his captors simply lower the anti-magic field. The cell nukes. The sorcerer dies.


Kthulhu wrote:
Ironballs wrote:

an amusing scenario come to mind, according to this new interpretation:

A powerfull wizard is locked in a permanent anti-magic cell, he spends his days casting magical traps \ delayed blast spells (permanent) etc.

on the day he get's loose, he finds a way to remove the anti-magic affect from afar i.e. press the detonation button:

all this pent up magical energy he cast there would explode like a mini nuke :)

One problem with your scenario...I doubt his captors let him keep his spellbook. A sorcerer would be much more capable of doing this. However...

More likely scenario: On the day of his release, his captors simply lower the anti-magic field. The cell nukes. The sorcerer dies.

Lol, pretty much the same conclusion.

Still, Hilarious :)


Kthulhu wrote:
Ironballs wrote:

an amusing scenario come to mind, according to this new interpretation:

A powerfull wizard is locked in a permanent anti-magic cell, he spends his days casting magical traps \ delayed blast spells (permanent) etc.

on the day he get's loose, he finds a way to remove the anti-magic affect from afar i.e. press the detonation button:

all this pent up magical energy he cast there would explode like a mini nuke :)

One problem with your scenario...I doubt his captors let him keep his spellbook. A sorcerer would be much more capable of doing this. However...

More likely scenario: On the day of his release, his captors simply lower the anti-magic field. The cell nukes. The sorcerer dies.

Spell mastery Fixes this problem.


Kthulhu wrote:
Sometimes I'm absolutely dumbfounded by how people look at the RAW looking for any small bit of ambiguous wording to avoid blatantly obvious RAI.

Can you clarify what blatantly obvious RAI you are speaking of?


Coriat wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Sometimes I'm absolutely dumbfounded by how people look at the RAW looking for any small bit of ambiguous wording to avoid blatantly obvious RAI.
Can you clarify what blatantly obvious RAI you are speaking of?

I think in this case he is referring to casting inside an anti-magic field, and there have been many threads where cheese was the order of the day. I think the OP in this case knows the RAI, but is looking for a RAW reason to do it. If he is the DM and he wants to do it then he should just do it.

Shadow Lodge

Coriat wrote:
Can you clarify what blatantly obvious RAI you are speaking of?

Well, it's called an ANTI-MAGIC field. It couldn't be much more blatant. But hey, if you wanna stretch some small meaningless ambiguity in the wording to change it into the MAGIC WORKS REAL GOOD IN HERE field, go right ahead.


Kthulhu wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Can you clarify what blatantly obvious RAI you are speaking of?
Well, it's called an ANTI-MAGIC field. It couldn't be much more blatant. But hey, if you wanna stretch some small meaningless ambiguity in the wording to change it into the MAGIC WORKS REAL GOOD IN HERE field, go right ahead.

It's a field that suppresses all magic, not eliminates it. Thats explicitly stated in the spell. Therefore, it's a valid question as To whether a spell of long duration cast into a AMF is supposed to be nullified (which is not what it does to other spells) or immediately suppressed.

Personally, I play with the former, but like the latter better for consistancy.


Kthulhu wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Can you clarify what blatantly obvious RAI you are speaking of?
Well, it's called an ANTI-MAGIC field. It couldn't be much more blatant. But hey, if you wanna stretch some small meaningless ambiguity in the wording to change it into the MAGIC WORKS REAL GOOD IN HERE field, go right ahead.

Which reading of the spell are you going after? Mine? Someone else's? I don't think any reading of the rules supports magic not being suppressed inside the field or allows magic to work real good inside while the field is up. Spells cast in the field are suppressed. That they start working again if it goes away doesn't mean they work while it's up.

Liberty's Edge

Part of the reading seems to be overlooked.
"... Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines."

Any spells are prevented from functioning within its confines. Those are not suppressed. They are prevented from ever working in the first place. So a sorcerer in an AMF can't cast a darn thing - all his spells are prevented from working.

Now a sorcerer outside the AMF can cast all she wants. Her spells that interact with the AMF get suppressed, but she isn't inside it and therefore she gets to cast spells.

So a dragon inside an AMF can't cast spells or use breath weapons on people outside the AMF - these things are prevented from working. A dragon can use a breath weapon on a party that has an AMF up, though it only works in places where the AMF isn't (it is suppressed inside that field). An AMF no longer blocks line of effect for any spells, merely suppresses the ones that come inside.

Part of me prefers the old AMF, which very simply stated that magic doesn't work and any magic that tries to work in it is lost. Now it's less of an Anti-Magic Field and more of a Magical Magic-Suppression Field.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I agree. The blatant use of very clear language which covers the effect on spells cast into or out of the AMF makes me question my original thought about RAI being no casting allowed.

Prior, I assumed suppression was for any ongoing effects which were brought into the AMF, and that casting into or out of the field were impossible. Reading the rules on the AMF however, really make that an unlikely reading of RAI.


Kain Darkwind wrote:

I agree. The blatant use of very clear language which covers the effect on spells cast into or out of the AMF makes me question my original thought about RAI being no casting allowed.

Prior, I assumed suppression was for any ongoing effects which were brought into the AMF, and that casting into or out of the field were impossible. Reading the rules on the AMF however, really make that an unlikely reading of RAI.

For those curious as to the "brokenness attempted" here, we were buffing when fighting a beholder while in its anti-magic cone, in preparation for surviving its eye rays when it dropped the cone. Pretty sure mirror image was the main buff in question.


Peter Stewart wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:

I agree. The blatant use of very clear language which covers the effect on spells cast into or out of the AMF makes me question my original thought about RAI being no casting allowed.

Prior, I assumed suppression was for any ongoing effects which were brought into the AMF, and that casting into or out of the field were impossible. Reading the rules on the AMF however, really make that an unlikely reading of RAI.

For those curious as to the "brokenness attempted" here, we were buffing when fighting a beholder while in its anti-magic cone, in preparation for surviving its eye rays when it dropped the cone. Pretty sure mirror image was the main buff in question.

Interesting discussion and exactly what I was looking for. In my reading, it seemed like you could (to my great surprise) cast out of an AM field without any problems at all - also that it did not block line of effect, so you could cast through it.

It seemed to be against the RAI.... but the RAW did seem to give those options. The meant that AM fields were actually quite good defensive buffs. One could hide in a field to make oneself immune to spells (at least for the duration) and launch one's own offensive spells out without a problem. I thought maybe this was the idea? Seemed odd though.

Liberty's Edge

This is a case of semantic quibbling IMO

Spells do not work in an antimagic field. Spells cast inside an antimagic field are suppressed but not counterspelled. If you leave the antimagic field, the spell might start to work until or if you come back inside it.

If a fireball is fired in to an Antimagic Field, it disappears. Likewise with any other spell cast outside of the antimagic field. No save, no caster level check or so forth. It's just wasted and gone.


Spells are prevented from functioning. You can mutter gibberish all you want and wave your hands around, but since magic can't happen in the AMF, it doesn't do anything.

A caster outside of it can cast into it, their spells just get suppressed. What is happening is that his gibberish and arm waving WORK, but then when their result hits the field, it blinks out. The robed guy inside the field cannot bring his arcane equations to completion in the first place.

Liberty's Edge

You can cast within an antimagic field.

However, since magic is negated in that field, all you will do is lose the spell slot that you use up.

The weird thing is that now you can cast THROUGH an antimagic field.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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.

Liberty's Edge

Kain Darkwind wrote:

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.

If you're within the confines of the AMF, your magic is prevented from functioning. You're welcome to interpret it otherwise, but I'd say that this means your magic fails completely. It's the price you pay for casting a spell while in the middle of an AMF.

1 to 50 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you cast within an antimagic field? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.