I just cannot, in my mind, reconcile the fact that Antimagic Field cancels out all Supernatural abilities. I want to houserule that it only affects spells and spell-like abilities, but I am encountering a lot of opposition from my players on this. My reasons are twofold:
1) Flavor: Antimagic Field canceling Supernaturals doesn't fit the "flavor" of many Pathfinder monsters. It blocking a dragon's breath is a major example of this. Another is the disappearance of incorporeal undead, and another is the negation of monster damage reduction. Finally, channel energy is perhaps my biggest flavor problem, as I always took that healing/harm to represent a deity's intervention, and the gods' power is so much more than simple "magic." As written, this spell should be called "Antifantasy Field," as it strips most iconic fantasy characters and monsters of not only magic, but also all of their unique abilities that make them fun, interesting, or challenging to encounter.
2) Power: The spell is only a 6th level spell and, as written, I believe it is too powerful. Nullifying spells and spell-like abilities is powerful enough on its own to warrant a 6th level spell, even considering that the character who cast the spell can no longer cast. (Though they could buff the party considerably beforehand.) Allowing supernaturals nullifies too many abilities in addition to spells and spellcasting. It turns the spell into a must-have, which, to me, means there is a balance issue.
My players believe (almost to a fault) that the rules of Pathfinder are fair and balanced at all times. They don't like it when I houserule powerful spells and abilities. Ordinarily, I would acquiesce to the rules as written, but my gut is telling me not to on this one. It doesn't seem balanced, and it doesn't seem like it preserves the flavor of the game. Not to mention that where there's smoke, there's fire, and a lot of people on these boards seem to dislike/feel uncomfortable about this spell.
So what do you guys think? Is it balanced as-is? Is my change an acceptable house rule, or is there something else I should consider?
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Obviously do as you wish in your home game, but personally I rarely see antimagic field get cast. It's too rough on the party to turn off their own magic as well as the enemies. If you really want to shut down a foe, the caster has to be really close to them as well, which is dangerous if you're talking something like a dragon. A wizard with no magic is going to be AC what, 12? A cleric will fare better there, but not much at 15th level. It's a strong effect but a smart foe should take it into consideration.
As far as it stopping (Su) abilities, those abilities come from magic just as much as spell-like abilities. You may view Channel Energy as direct divine intervention, but it works just as well in campaigns where clerics don't even have to worship a deity. It's not quite as extreme as your "antifantasy" field - dragons don't collapse and suffocate under their own weight when subjected to it(which the larger ones would if they somehow became subject to real world physics).
Also, if you make your change, be prepared to have some enterprising player make a witch to throw hexes out of their antimagic. Hexes are supernatural.
But if you want to drive a point home, why don't you reverse he situation... Use the same tactic on them.
I only run published adventure paths, so I don't tweak or change the encounters to exploit party weaknesses unless the text explicitly states I should do this. I find it makes the game be less "me versus them" and more "them versus the system" when I don't do original stuff. This makes for a better game, in my opinion, but means we tend to place more emphasis on the rules than casual homebrew players. This, in turn, leads to my current situation.
It's not quite as extreme as your "antifantasy" field - dragons don't collapse and suffocate under their own weight when subjected to it
Point taken. They do, however, become little more than large, flying lizards. Something about that just irks me personally, I suppose.
Also, if you make your change, be prepared to have some enterprising player make a witch to throw hexes out of their antimagic. Hexes are supernatural.
Also a valid point. I don't have anyone quite so Munchkin in my group, thankfully. The current player I have is a 12th level Arcane school Wizard. His current go-to tactic is to buff the party with powerful spells, fling his best combat spell at the start of combat, and then go antimagic and let his party clean the enemies up. The party uses teamwork to protect him, and he rolled very high stats (I wish they would use point buy, I really do) so he has a lot of hit points- more than enough to survive a few full attacks from powerful monsters (not that they ever get a few with the other PCs wailing on them).
Honestly, these are really just solid tactics on their part, and I don't necessarily think they should be punished for them. But if this becomes the key to winning every challenging fight in the published adventure path, then to me it speaks to a problem with the spell itself rather than a problem with the players. I feel that limiting antimagic to only spells and spell-like abilities is a good way to make the spell niche and useful, but keep it from being a "no-brainer" style spell pick.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I guess I'm a little confused about your party's tactics. So the wizard prebuffs everybody, then hides in his antimagic? The rest of the party can't be in there too or else none of the buffs will work. It just sounds to me like your problem is more with the prebuffing - your wizard isn't really doing anything once the battle actually starts. He'd probably be a lot more effective if he actually participated in the fight itself.
Remember that the wizard's antimagic also suppresses his stat bonus items - all those become temporary bonuses again until he goes 24 hours without suppressing them. So he loses all his bonus spell slots from any Int boosting item he may have. He loses bonus hp from Con items as well while the field is up. The rest of the party can't "benefit" from the protection of antimagic without also losing all of their magic bonuses as well. A 12th level martial character is probably losing about +5 to hit, +5-7 damage, 8-9 AC, etc just from being in antimagic.
A dragon turned into a giant lizard is still a giant lizard with incredible physical ability scores, many attacks per round, and lots of BAB and AC. Antimagic is usually a relative buff for dragons because their opponents need magic a lot more than the dragon does.
As written, this spell should be called "Antifantasy Field," as it strips most iconic fantasy characters and monsters of not only magic, but also all of their unique abilities that make them fun, interesting, or challenging to encounter.
You have entered...
I'm going off memory here so sorry if I'm on the wrong track.
In your world, what would the difference between Supernatural (Su) and Extrordinary (Ex) abilities be under your house rule. Under the normal ruling, each ability is distinct, i.e. there is enough difference between Spell Like (Sp) & Su, Su & Ex, and Ex and Sp. It seems under the house rule, Su and Ex would basically become identical. I always considered the vulnerability to anti-magic the defining difference between these types of abilities so I would advise against the ruling.
On a seperate note in case you have an arcane archer with antimagic field I'd house rule that...
Thanks for the input, everyone. I don't want this to become an in-depth analysis of my players' tactics, so I'm going to let that drop.
It seems under the house rule, Su and Ex would basically become identical. I always considered the vulnerability to anti-magic the defining difference between these types of abilities so I would advise against the ruling
To me, an extraordinary ability means a character or monster is inherently good at the thing in question. They just do it because it's a part of their being or a part of intense training. A barbarian is just really tough. Rogues have trained to know how to sneak attack you.
Supernatural abilities, however, have always been more about the "science" of the monster. Dragons breathe fire for biological reasons in my game, not magical. Ghosts are not magical beings, but rather a unique life form completely separate from normal creatures. Vampires energy drain you because they are leeching from your soul due to their curse. To me, none of these things are "magic." And taking away the supernatural abilities of these things effectively makes them a big lizard, a puff of mist, and a smelly old dude in a tacky cape- respectively.
The name itself kind of gives my definition away: Super natural. These are the "natural" abilities possessed by these creatures. They are fully explainable within the world of Pathfinder, but seem pretty super to us normal people.
That's how I arrive at my "antifantasy field" conclusion. Perhaps its name is a tad dramatic, but it really does rob monsters of their fantasy flavor if used against them. It just seems out of place. There is nothing else like it. Why don't we have an "Antiskill/training Field" to nullify extraordinary abilities? Because that would be silly.
|
|
Really it's just a game at heart. Sounds like your players are against it and honestly any good house rule is made as a joint effort between everyone making the game.
Plus most anti-magic fields are used against the PC's in your average game so to see you worried about the monster's abilities seems kind of unusual. Maybe it's because the Beholder isn't part of the OGL...
Do effects that originate outside an anti-magic field die when they reach one?
I can see a dragon inside the field finding that they can't use their breath weapon, but I have a hard time believing that a blast of dragonfire from outside the field would simply disappear at the edge of it.
|
Do effects that originate outside an anti-magic field die when they reach one?
I can see a dragon inside the field finding that they can't use their breath weapon, but I have a hard time believing that a blast of dragonfire from outside the field would simply disappear at the edge of it.
They're suppressed, which isn't quite the same as dying. For instance, if you fire a lightning bolt at the goblin shaman with AMF up, he will be perfectly safe, but you'll still fry the archer standing behind him and the hut they came out of will catch fire too (provided all are in range of your line.)
In other words, AMF won't cancel the spell completely unless the spell's point of origin is within its radius. The same is true of a larger or larger creature - if he is bigger than the AMF, any part of him outside the AMF will still have magic.
Ok, that makes even less sense.
Good thing it's an Emanation effect and can be pushed back with a good tower shield.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
So it sounds like you have a very differnet definition in your head of what supernatural means, compared to the game designers. Here's the breakdown as I see it:
Spell-like: a magical ability that copies a spell
Supernatural: a magical ability that does not copy a spell
Extraordinary: a nonmagical special ability
This understanding makes it easy to see why AMF suppresses supernatural abilities.
Based on your description, you'd prefer if many (Su) abilities were (Ex) instead; as the GM, it is within your rights to just change monsters, you know? Why not just let your players know that many "innate" abilities of monsters will be (Ex) in your game, and leave the spell as it is? That way the stuff you see as truly magical is still suppressed but the abilities you see as "part of" the creature still work?
Even in common language, "supernatural" means "beyond natural" e.g. magic.
I think the only reason I was probing at your players' tactics is I still have a vague suspicion that you are doing something wrong with AMF - I have no basis for that other than in my experience AMF hurts the PCs much more than it helps them.
Actually, I was about to post a thread on this subject! So here's my deal: GM created a couple of magic items we found that had planar binding on them, but (assuming successful Will roll) it allows me to control the elementals. So I like to summon elementals and whatnot. That raises an interesting point: Anti-magic field rules say that a summoned creature that enters such a field basically winks out (will reappear once the field dissipates), BUT if they're not summoned they can enter the field as per a normal creature.
Since my scepter essentially lets me both bind summoned elemental to this plane AND lets me dominate them with a successful Will check, would they count as summoned anymore? Although they would have been summoned, they would be bound to this plane and then would be compelled into acting according to my will. Does that mean that (at least from a rules perspective) they would no longer be summoned (and would the compulsion hold once they enter the anti-magic field)
Planar binding/ally spells are conjuration(calling) and not summoning. If item in question duplicates those effects and not summon monster/natural ally then there is no problem with entering antimagic field. It would still suspend domination effect on the creature, however.
Really it's just a game at heart. Sounds like your players are against it and honestly any good house rule is made as a joint effort between everyone making the game.
Right you are. I have decided to simply put it to a player vote next game. Whatever they decide is what I'll use.
Good thing it's an Emanation effect and can be pushed back with a good tower shield.
Wait, what? I'm not sure what you mean here. I assume you mean the *caster* can be pushed back, right? I wasn't aware shields could push back any magical effects.
So it sounds like you have a very differnet definition in your head of what supernatural means, compared to the game designers.
Yes, actually, that's exactly right. I was letting my own interpretation of the fantasy world inform the rules I was making. I'm not sure if that's good or bad GMing, actually. One of my players suggested we rename the spell "Aura of Normalcy." That, for some reason, seems better to me.
I think the only reason I was probing at your players' tactics is I still have a vague suspicion that you are doing something wrong with AMF - I have no basis for that other than in my experience AMF hurts the PCs much more than it helps them
To everyone suggesting I turn this tactic around on my players: again, I only use published material. I haven't had a monster in the AP with this spell or ability yet. If Paizo writers put it there, I will happily use it. As for my players' tactics...well...they are really, really good. My players have been playing for well over a decade at this point (various incarnations of "the most popular tabletop blah blah") and they are much, much better at tactical war-games than I am. They rarely make mistakes in combat, if ever, and tend to keep their bases covered.
But I suppose disparity between Player vs GM war-game skill is a topic for another thread.
Emanations are treated as bursts, and burst can't get around certain kinds of cover, like that provided by a tower shield. (Compared to spreads, like fireball, which would just go around the cover/corner--completely enveloping a tower shield user despite the total cover.)
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
To everyone suggesting I turn this tactic around on my players: again, I only use published material. I haven't had a monster in the AP with this spell or ability yet. If Paizo writers put it there, I will happily use it. As for my players' tactics...well...they are really, really good. My players have been playing for well over a decade at this point (various incarnations of "the most popular tabletop blah blah") and they are much, much better at tactical war-games than I am. They rarely make mistakes in combat, if ever, and tend to keep their bases covered.
But I suppose disparity between Player vs GM war-game skill is a topic for another thread.
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting that you hit your PCs with the same tactic. What I was trying to say is that, in my experience, a PC party given the choice of fighting a vampire/dragon/whatever either A. in an AMF or B. not, 90% of parties will choose B. Turning off the enemy's special abilities is often not worth turning off the party's. So either your group has some interesting and unique tactics, or someone is running AMF incorrectly.
Interesting observation about tower shields, btw. I have not seen that before.
It's an area of effect. It goes right through the shield, and the shield holder, even if it does not effect them. It does not damage, so it doesn't have to destroy the shield to penetrate it.
You might split the difference, and give a will save vs anti-magic field if the creature is concentrating.