Why don't we see everyone with weapons enchanted with anti-magic Field?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

People talk about spellcasters being over powered and other items. It seems like this would be something really easily bypass, simply by having weapons which when drawn, or something when invoked, brings up anti-magic field. Very few spells (some very high level ones) by pass it, and if the M-U can't cast into it in combat, it would seem that using something like this, the warriors would actually be the ones that are overpowered.

Yes, it maybe a one trick pony per se, but if it's so useful, I can't imagine why it isn't more widespread.

Is there a reason why people don't use this a LOT. It would seem to do away with the entire ideology of casters being so powerful in relation to other classes to a degree, at least combat wise.

Am I missing something? (which I could be as I'm relatively new to PF).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The spell can't be placed on items. It's an area centred on the caster.


I'm not certain why it couldn't be placed on items...invisibility, other transmutation spells and such or their effects (for example, though not bull's strength, Belt of Giant strength does something similar, then you have boots of teleportation, Boots of levitation, boots of speed, which are also items centered on the caster, and of course, basically a very similar idea but different spell is what a cube of force uses).

We also have scarabs of protection which grant spell resistance, which if high enough could be basically very similar in effect, there are many items which may be personal or area effects centered onto a person which are on spell items, why not Anti-Magic Field?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Anti-magic shell is not a spell that can be made permanent on an object.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If such an item existed, it would be significantly over powered, and also negate multiple classes entirely. It would also be absolutely no fun, as whomever bought one would have to pay out the nose (because, you know, strong) and would constantly have to have 2 versions of their character, one with magic and one without. Hence why it does not exist.


Is there anything that actually disallows it in regards to other items which also have personal or area effected centered on a person?

I guess, in regards to something like Wall of Force and Cube of Force, is there a rule that specifies you can't do something to Anti-Magic Field (excuse me, it's field in PF, not shell), and then explains why other spells that have a similar type and area are not also included in this, such as the above spell and then item which basically is the spell on an item?


Yes, per the permanency spell, anti-magic shell can not be made permanent. Thus you could at best get a one shot item that is pretty expensive.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Because I don't allow my NPC's that much more freedom than PC's when it comes to cheese.

But seriously as a mental exercise in developing your imagination, when a

"Why don't" question pops into your head, try to look for reasons to fill in the "Because".


Under Magic Item Creation it does not state that you have to cast a permanency spell.

I tsays that items cast or replicate spells that the price equal the base price plus an extra price for the spell components costs. even if it's a disposable item that Warriors would take, such as perhaps a bead they throw down or break, or a potion, it would seem cheap enough at higher levels given the cost that every warrior should invest in it.

As there is no specific item listed, it seems like you would go of the Magic Creation guide which if you are making a weapon states you have to have a heat source and some iron, wood or leatherworking materials, a supply of materials being the weapon, in addition the casters level must be 3x the level of the enhancement bonus.

It also has to have the spell (anti-magic field) and the money for it as well as 1 day per 1000 gp value of the base price and the Craft Magic Arms and Armor, and probably spell craft and Craft (weapons).

It doesn't show a permanency spell actually being requisite for a self tailored weapon as per the Core Rulebook (looking at pages 549 - 551)


LazarX wrote:

Because I don't allow my NPC's that much more freedom than PC's when it comes to cheese.

But seriously as a mental exercise in developing your imagination, when a

"Why don't" question pops into your head, try to look for reasons to fill in the "Because".

From what I've seen, many people rank classes as per tiers on these boards. If so, wouldn't that mean this is no more cheesy than saying a Wizard is Tier 1 because they can cast spells which no one else can negate?

If it is easily negated...why in the world are people saying Wizards are so powerful.

This seems like an OBVIOUS way to negate the power in favor of fighters/Barbarians, etc...at least in combat.


So then the answer to your question becomes, "Sure - if your GM allows it." The rules state that custom magic items are up to the GM - so while it may technically be possible, your GM can tell you no, and be perfectly rules-justified in doing so.


How about lesser weapons with the Globes of Invulnerability? Is an interesting thought.


Actually, you don't have to make it permanent. Just create an item (say a bracers, or amulet, whatever, why not even a sword) that could cast the spell (command word activated) let say... 3 times a day

Following the table in the CRB, that should cost you 71280 gp or 23260 gp for a one time per day item.

But any cleric or wizard in your party should be able to cast that by the time you have such an item...

edit: a simpler method to neutralize the opposing wizard might be to have someone in the party cast silence and move in range. Then next round ready an action "to follow" the wizard whenever he moves...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly? Because if anti-magic items became common then everyone would play martial characters and spells, SLA, and SU abilities would all become things of the past as every high level fighter stabs all the casters to death for years and years of abuse.

But seriously, it would upset the entire balance of the game as it exists now. I'm not saying I necessarily like how the game is currently balance, but antimagic everywhere would totally throw it in the opposite direction which isn't good either.

If you want to make that sort of setting just don't allow any spell casting classes anywhere, no magic, no magic items, and no monsters have any spells, SLA, or SU abilities.

Yep...that sounds....just super.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, I just realized: You couldn't make an anti-magic field weapon.

Why? The moment you turned on the field, the weapon's magical effects would cease to function. Even if theoretically the anti-magic field couldn't cancel itself out, it would cancel out all the magical enhancement bonus on the weapon - and at that point any weapon special abilities would cease to function because the weapon no longer has the minimum base +1 enhancement required.


+1 to Claxon!!!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There's also the fact that anti-magic field means that your martial characters don't get any of the magical buffs that move them from "mediocre" to "not quite as good as a caster but still viable". It cancels all magic, not just hostile effects.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xaratherus wrote:

Actually, I just realized: You couldn't make an anti-magic field weapon.

Why? The moment you turned on the field, the weapon's magical effects would cease to function. Even if theoretically the anti-magic field couldn't cancel itself out, it would cancel out all the magical enhancement bonus on the weapon - and at that point any weapon special abilities would cease to function because the weapon no longer has the minimum base +1 enhancement required.

+1

There you go. I was coming to make this comment. Didn't want to steal it from anyone


But overall, there's nothing really to prevent it, so when people are tossing around how powerful guys are...it would seem standard just to give the fighters anti-magic field items.

If people are already discussing how they feel the Rogue and Fighter are broken and balance does not exist...

Then I don't see why this wouldn't come up more often as it really kind of neutralizes that entire...Wizards dominate everything (and even with anti-magic on everyone opposing them Fields Wizards would still be pretty powerful, especially with someone with imagination on how to utilize spells), and would seem right in line with the entire classes and balance broken thing many people discuss on these boards.

Of course, if PC's were to suddenly start equipping these regularly, NPC's probably would as well.

It would probably also tend to force having at least a warrior or two be absolutely vital at the beginning of combat at least.


Think about the thread title for a bit.


Xaratherus wrote:

Actually, I just realized: You couldn't make an anti-magic field weapon.

Why? The moment you turned on the field, the weapon's magical effects would cease to function. Even if theoretically the anti-magic field couldn't cancel itself out, it would cancel out all the magical enhancement bonus on the weapon - and at that point any weapon special abilities would cease to function because the weapon no longer has the minimum base +1 enhancement required.

Moreover, it works for the same reason it works as a spell. The spell itself does not neutralize itself out, it's centered. So the item would be centered on itself. It WOULD MEAN that all your other magic items would effectively be useless. WE aren't talking about Dispel

you could say the same should happen with spell resistance items...but it doesn't. The spell resistance applies to that being cast against them, not by them.
Magic here, we are talking Anti-Magic Field (where when cast, the caster still has the spell working...the spell does NOT negate itself, just disables all OTHER spells from working).

Despite that, even if not in weapon form...

However, that still doesn't address the issue of use and toss items, for example beads, or other items.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Try this for some fun: Arcane archer can place antimagic field where an arrow lands!


The rules prevent it. Magic Item Creation are guidelines not hard set rules, they are up to GM to allow/disallow or change. The Item can not be created by RAW as it is not listed under spells able to be made permanent on items, just a location. So if you want to play king of the hill and stand in a spot then sure you can have hour AMF. And without magic a Dragon will still mess up/ murderate said fighter in hand to hand.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

But overall, there's nothing really to prevent it, so when people are tossing around how powerful guys are...it would seem standard just to give the fighters anti-magic field items.

If people are already discussing how they feel the Rogue and Fighter are broken and balance does not exist...

Then I don't see why this wouldn't come up more often as it really kind of neutralizes that entire...Wizards dominate everything (and even with anti-magic on everyone opposing them Fields Wizards would still be pretty powerful, especially with someone with imagination on how to utilize spells), and would seem right in line with the entire classes and balance broken thing many people discuss on these boards.

Of course, if PC's were to suddenly start equipping these regularly, NPC's probably would as well.

It would probably also tend to force having at least a warrior or two be absolutely vital at the beginning of combat at least.

It's a terrible idea for PCs because it puts them at a strict disadvantage against monsters that are powerful spellcasters AND physical powerhouses, like a Balor, and an enemy caster's large minions.

You cancel out any potential buffs and magic items, meaning you're put on a strict 1:1 comparison with the monster's stats...which are generally a helluva lot higher than yours.

And then it does nothing to help inter-class balance whatsoever. The only thing it would accomplish is letting martials win PvP (irrelevant) or making casters obsolete because you equip every NPC with an AMF item (which you're free to do, but "I can fiat this so you suck" is not the same thing as proving there is no imbalance).

You seem to be trying to "win" some kind of argument with this train of thought. It's silly. Please stop.


Ashe wrote:
The rules prevent it. Magic Item Creation are guidelines not hard set rules, they are up to GM to allow/disallow or change. The Item can not be created by RAW as it is not listed under spells able to be made permanent on items, just a location. So if you want to play king of the hill and stand in a spot then sure you can have hour AMF. And without magic a Dragon will still mess up/ murderate said fighter in hand to hand.

I'm not certain what you mean. It never says in Magic Item creation that you can only make items with spells able to be made permanent, in fact under the Magic Item creation rules it seems specifically tailored so that you can actually create ALMOST anything with a spell as per what they are written.

In fact, for the most part, the Magic Item creation rules as per the Core Rulebook seem to address items that are NOT specifically listed.

I don't see anywhere in the rules where it states any restriction because of the permanency spell.

Over 50% of the magic items listed would break that rule from what I'm seeing. Any +1, +2 weapon or armor would not be covered from the rules under the permanency spell. (as per rules, Magic Fang is NATURAL...whereas a sword is NOT a natural weapon).

From what I see there is a distinct difference between permanency and magic item creation. An item with a permanency spell cast on it may be considered magical, but it's created with a permanent spell effect on it. The Magic Item creation rules seem to be for items that could utilize that method (as per GM fiat) but also other items as well.


Rynjin wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

But overall, there's nothing really to prevent it, so when people are tossing around how powerful guys are...it would seem standard just to give the fighters anti-magic field items.

If people are already discussing how they feel the Rogue and Fighter are broken and balance does not exist...

Then I don't see why this wouldn't come up more often as it really kind of neutralizes that entire...Wizards dominate everything (and even with anti-magic on everyone opposing them Fields Wizards would still be pretty powerful, especially with someone with imagination on how to utilize spells), and would seem right in line with the entire classes and balance broken thing many people discuss on these boards.

Of course, if PC's were to suddenly start equipping these regularly, NPC's probably would as well.

It would probably also tend to force having at least a warrior or two be absolutely vital at the beginning of combat at least.

It's a terrible idea for PCs because it puts them at a strict disadvantage against monsters that are powerful spellcasters AND physical powerhouses, like a Balor, and an enemy caster's large minions.

You cancel out any potential buffs and magic items, meaning you're put on a strict 1:1 comparison with the monster's stats...which are generally a helluva lot higher than yours.

And then it does nothing to help inter-class balance whatsoever. The only thing it would accomplish is letting martials win PvP (irrelevant) or making casters obsolete because you equip every NPC with an AMF item (which you're free to do, but "I can fiat this so you suck" is not the same thing as proving there is no imbalance).

You seem to be trying to "win" some kind of argument with this train of thought. It's silly. Please stop.

If anything, it to state that when discussing tier to tier (which one could call PvP) it would seem obvious that Fighters would easily have this in the back pocket.

In addition, if it's a once a day or three times a day invoking thing...they don't have to use it every battle.

But yes, if you are in a battle with a strict spellcaster (which could be very useful in many battles)...this would seem to be something a warrior simply could not forgo having.

Any Magekiller would definitely want such an item in their repertoire.

Against a Balor...you'd probably want to plan that one out and figure what exactly you wanted to take with you on that one...I agree, these types of weapons may NOT be what you are looking for.

Edit: In addition, for NPC's, sure, it would also seem a no brainer...but they ALSO would not want to cause problems in their own party, or maybe the have such a good AC that they don't want to negate certain items. There can be multiple reasons why they would or would not use these items in a battle, but having one in their back pocket...absolutely vital.

On the otherhand, as I stated (briefly) it actually does NOT take the caster out of the party. It is an area affect, which means a caster may not be in the area of effect. A caster has to know a lot of different spells and so an imaginative caster probably will still be VERY effective overall. They will probably focus more on spells that affect the surrounding area rather than direct attack spell however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

High level casters are possibly the least vulnerable to antimagic field.

Spellbane: AMF! (and disjunction, maze, wish...)


Umbral Reaver wrote:

High level casters are possibly the least vulnerable to antimagic field.

Spellbane: AMF! (and disjunction, maze, wish...)

That's seriously a broken spell and should really be restricted to virtually no one.


Umbral Reaver wrote:

High level casters are possibly the least vulnerable to antimagic field.

Spellbane: AMF! (and disjunction, maze, wish...)

Yep, as I said, it doesn't take the casters out of the battle, and in fact the warriors probably would only be necessary at the VERY beginning of the battle (and perhaps vital), but it by no means negates casters.

AMF is simply just so effective overall, that I can't believe more people don't have items and utilize them when discussing the classes and balance.

(just like they reason about the wand of cure light wounds all the time and having a party utilize that).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Comparing tiers is not the same as PvP.

PvP is actual direct conflict between player characters. When your Fighter tries to kill your Wizard, that is PvP.

Tiers are a rough measurement of how many options a class has and how many unique situations it can deal with.

Fighters are low tier because they have one solution to one problem: Kill it.

Wizards are the opposite.

It's as simple as that. An Anti-Magic Field does nothing to change that unless you put them EVERYWHERE, and even then it doesn't change the power of the class, just how weird your setting is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:

Actually, I just realized: You couldn't make an anti-magic field weapon.

Why? The moment you turned on the field, the weapon's magical effects would cease to function. Even if theoretically the anti-magic field couldn't cancel itself out, it would cancel out all the magical enhancement bonus on the weapon - and at that point any weapon special abilities would cease to function because the weapon no longer has the minimum base +1 enhancement required.

Moreover, it works for the same reason it works as a spell. The spell itself does not neutralize itself out, it's centered. So the item would be centered on itself. It WOULD MEAN that all your other magic items would effectively be useless. WE aren't talking about Dispel

you could say the same should happen with spell resistance items...but it doesn't. The spell resistance applies to that being cast against them, not by them.
Magic here, we are talking Anti-Magic Field (where when cast, the caster still has the spell working...the spell does NOT negate itself, just disables all OTHER spells from working).

I think you missed the point: What it's cancelling out includes the enhancement bonus to the weapon, because the weapon is within the area of the field.

It does not cancel out the anti-magic field effect on the weapon directly. It does cancel out the weapon's +1 magical enhancement. At that point, the anti-magic field effect stops working, because a weapon by the rules can't have active special abilities on it unless it has at least a +1 bonus.

Now the "throw an anti-magic pebble" item is a different matter. I don't really have a problem with that as a GM. It'd be pricey though. Antimagic Field is a 6th level spell, requiring an 11th level Wizard, and it's a slotless item. That's . . . 264,000 gold. ([6th level spell X 11th CL X 2000g] X 2 {slotless item}). You could drop that price by giving it uses per day, but even that leaves it over 100k.


Xaratherus wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:

Actually, I just realized: You couldn't make an anti-magic field weapon.

Why? The moment you turned on the field, the weapon's magical effects would cease to function. Even if theoretically the anti-magic field couldn't cancel itself out, it would cancel out all the magical enhancement bonus on the weapon - and at that point any weapon special abilities would cease to function because the weapon no longer has the minimum base +1 enhancement required.

Moreover, it works for the same reason it works as a spell. The spell itself does not neutralize itself out, it's centered. So the item would be centered on itself. It WOULD MEAN that all your other magic items would effectively be useless. WE aren't talking about Dispel

you could say the same should happen with spell resistance items...but it doesn't. The spell resistance applies to that being cast against them, not by them.
Magic here, we are talking Anti-Magic Field (where when cast, the caster still has the spell working...the spell does NOT negate itself, just disables all OTHER spells from working).

I think you missed the point: What it's cancelling out includes the enhancement bonus to the weapon, because the weapon is within the area of the field.

It does not cancel out the anti-magic field effect on the weapon directly. It does cancel out the weapon's +1 magical enhancement. At that point, the anti-magic field effect stops working, because a weapon by the rules can't have active special abilities on it unless it has at least a +1 bonus.

Now the "throw an anti-magic pebble" item is a different matter. I don't really have a problem with that as a GM. It'd be pricey though. Antimagic Field is a 6th level spell, requiring an 11th level Wizard, and it's a slotless item. That's . . . 264,000 gold. ([6th level spell X 11th CL X 2000g] X 2 {slotless item}). You could drop that price by giving it uses per day, but even that leaves it over 100k.

WE already have another example of how this would work, but with a different spell.

Anti-Magic Field does not dispel the magic, it simply disables it...however Dispel Magic actually dispels the Magic. So if an item dispelled magic, would it dispel itself?

Your theory is that it would.

However, using the Holy Avenger, we see that the spell effects do not necessarily dispel the weapon's enchantment. Unless, of course, you are suggesting everytime the Paladin casts Greater Dispel Magic from his Holy Avenger, he has a chance to destroy (or dispel) his Holy Avenger.

I would say the same applies to an Anti-Magic Field Weapon.


The difference, the HUGE difference, being that Dispel Magic is a targeted effect, and therefore won't hit the weapon you're casting it from unless you specifically choose to do so.

AMF is an AoE. You're inside it if it emanates from the weapon. So is the weapon.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

You're comparing apples to oranges. Antimagic field and dispel magic work in two totally different ways. Dispel has to actually target something or someone. Antimagic is an area effect that affects everything in the area.


Actually, the item description forbids them from using the targeted effect. It's the 20 ft radius only, as specified in the item description. AKA, it's an area effect weapon for Greater Dispel Magic.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

There is one line that refutes your logic that you missed:

Greater Dispel Magic wrote:
...Magic items are not affected by an area dispel.


Simplest reason? Cost.

A magic item with permanent anti-magic field (which is somewhat of a non-sequitur) would cost 264,000gp (6*11*2000, x2 for 10 min/level duration). On a sword (a non-slot item), it would cost 528,000gp.

And the fantastically powerful warrior who would commission and wield such an object? Gets torn apart by a squad of mid-level archers sent by the local church of Nethys.


A holy avenger does NOT cast dispel magic on itself..it casts it in an area that the user directs. That is 100% different from the way an anti-magic field works..which nullifies ALL magic within its area..including itself if it is part of an item or weapon. As stated, as soon as the sword gets depowered it loses the ability to generate the field..and it drops. It would be cancel magic for less then a single round.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
I'm not certain why it couldn't be placed on items...

In a nutshell, the answer is that the rules (aside from rule zero) aren't designed to let you do that.

Could you change the rules, as a DM, and allow it?

Yes. Go for it.

Is there a cogent argument that will convince a DM that the rules (aside from rule zero) allow it? No.


anthonydido wrote:

There is one line that refutes your logic that you missed:

Greater Dispel Magic wrote:
...Magic items are not affected by an area dispel.

That's true,

and it would depend on how you look at it. A Caster does NOT become immagical, and creations that are magical do NOT disappear. Conjurations do, but constructs that are imbued with magic during their creation process and are thereafter self-supporting are not dispelled. It would seem that the character themselves are not supporting the spell, but that the spell is indeed being supported by the item itself. In otherwords, the spell is generated by the item.

In that, I'd grant it could be debatable...but using the Holy Avenger as one example.

And of course, weapons are only ONE of the methods available as I posited, disposable magic items could be equally valid...especially at higher levels when money isn't as much of a limiter.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ashe wrote:
The rules prevent it. Magic Item Creation are guidelines not hard set rules, they are up to GM to allow/disallow or change. The Item can not be created by RAW as it is not listed under spells able to be made permanent on items, just a location. So if you want to play king of the hill and stand in a spot then sure you can have hour AMF. And without magic a Dragon will still mess up/ murderate said fighter in hand to hand.

If I want a dragon that has a pretty good shot of TPKing a party, Anti-Magic Shell and Crush will do the job.


Majuba wrote:

Simplest reason? Cost.

A magic item with permanent anti-magic field (which is somewhat of a non-sequitur) would cost 264,000gp (6*11*2000, x2 for 10 min/level duration). On a sword (a non-slot item), it would cost 528,000gp.

And the fantastically powerful warrior who would commission and wield such an object? Gets torn apart by a squad of mid-level archers sent by the local church of Nethys.

To tell the truth, I don't think It's actually much worse than a Rod of Negation, except a Rod of Negation has PERMANENT effects rather than simply disabling the effects in a small area and only when it's activated.


In a similar vein, someone raised the question about Globes of invulnerability.

That would be another item I think could be utilized in a similar manner and we also have weapons that directly list that as an effect their item can use (aka...staff of Power).

Using that also as a directive, you could utilize the same ideas from that to the AMF also...depending on how you define the level of the item and such.


LazarX wrote:
Ashe wrote:
The rules prevent it. Magic Item Creation are guidelines not hard set rules, they are up to GM to allow/disallow or change. The Item can not be created by RAW as it is not listed under spells able to be made permanent on items, just a location. So if you want to play king of the hill and stand in a spot then sure you can have hour AMF. And without magic a Dragon will still mess up/ murderate said fighter in hand to hand.
If I want a dragon that has a pretty good shot of TPKing a party, Anti-Magic Shell and Crush will do the job.

Dragons are pretty scary...aren't they!

;)


Claxon wrote:

Honestly? Because if anti-magic items became common then everyone would play martial characters and spells, SLA, and SU abilities would all become things of the past as every high level fighter stabs all the casters to death for years and years of abuse.

But seriously, it would upset the entire balance of the game as it exists now. I'm not saying I necessarily like how the game is currently balance, but antimagic everywhere would totally throw it in the opposite direction which isn't good either.

If you want to make that sort of setting just don't allow any spell casting classes anywhere, no magic, no magic items, and no monsters have any spells, SLA, or SU abilities.

Yep...that sounds....just super.

Until the wizard decided to walk away for a little bit and cast planar binding, build golems, or just cast spells that aren't effected by an anti-magic sphere, like walls of force or prismatic spheres.

Also, playing martials would be incredibly boring, too. All your magic gear wouldn't work in a fight.


Blackerose wrote:
A holy avenger does NOT cast dispel magic on itself..it casts it in an area that the user directs. That is 100% different from the way an anti-magic field works..which nullifies ALL magic within its area..including itself if it is part of an item or weapon. As stated, as soon as the sword gets depowered it loses the ability to generate the field..and it drops. It would be cancel magic for less then a single round.

Actually Anti-Magic field DOES NOT nullify ALL magic, as it does NOT nullify the source of the casting. This is why Anti-Magic Field does not automatically suppress itself. The caster cannot cast any OTHER spell without it being suppressed immediately, but they remain immune from the spell itself.

Hence if it allowed the weapon to allow the wielder to cast it (ala Holy Avenger with the Greater Dispel Magic ability) the weapon itself would no longer function (so no +1 or other) but as the weapon allowed the wielder to cast it, the spell's origin would still be the caster (ala like the Magic User) and hence Anti Magic Field should still be in place...as it does NOT dispel the actual spellcaster casting that specific spell (though it suppresses all other spells he has cast).

This would fall in line with what someone else suggested with it being limited to a one or three uses a day weapon.


Xaratherus wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:

Actually, I just realized: You couldn't make an anti-magic field weapon.

Why? The moment you turned on the field, the weapon's magical effects would cease to function. Even if theoretically the anti-magic field couldn't cancel itself out, it would cancel out all the magical enhancement bonus on the weapon - and at that point any weapon special abilities would cease to function because the weapon no longer has the minimum base +1 enhancement required.

Moreover, it works for the same reason it works as a spell. The spell itself does not neutralize itself out, it's centered. So the item would be centered on itself. It WOULD MEAN that all your other magic items would effectively be useless. WE aren't talking about Dispel

you could say the same should happen with spell resistance items...but it doesn't. The spell resistance applies to that being cast against them, not by them.
Magic here, we are talking Anti-Magic Field (where when cast, the caster still has the spell working...the spell does NOT negate itself, just disables all OTHER spells from working).

I think you missed the point: What it's cancelling out includes the enhancement bonus to the weapon, because the weapon is within the area of the field.

It does not cancel out the anti-magic field effect on the weapon directly. It does cancel out the weapon's +1 magical enhancement. At that point, the anti-magic field effect stops working, because a weapon by the rules can't have active special abilities on it unless it has at least a +1 bonus.

Now the "throw an anti-magic pebble" item is a different matter. I don't really have a problem with that as a GM. It'd be pricey though. Antimagic Field is a 6th level spell, requiring an 11th level Wizard, and it's a slotless item. That's . . . 264,000 gold. ([6th level spell X 11th CL X 2000g] X 2 {slotless item}). You could drop that price by giving it uses per day, but even that leaves it over 100k.

yep, it would be a higher level spell.

However, using the Holy Avenger as the example, the weapon is the SOURCE of the spell, aka...it allows the wielder to cast it...but it is not the spell itself.

Hence, the spell is made available by the weapon, like the HOly Avenger avails Greater Dispel Magic to the Paladin, but the spell when looking at it, originates from the caster. (wording is it also enables the paladin to use greater dispel magic).

So, the spell is actually probably cast by the wielder (which takes a round probably), but then is treated like it was cast by that wielder as well(as just like the Paladin's Greater Dispel Magic is based upon the Paladin's level, not the weapons CL).

Lantern Lodge

AMF doesn't dispel the magic that is feeding the field.

It dispels the weapon that is providing the magic that is feeding the field.


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

AMF doesn't dispel the magic that is feeding the field.

It dispels the weapon that is providing the magic that is feeding the field.

Once cast, that magic would be originating from the wielder though. I agree the weapon itself would not be able to cast another AMF or even have to hit bonuses while the field is in effect, but as the spell is actually cast by the wielder (aka...Holy Avenger), just like it does not suppress itself once cast by someone, it should not be suppressing itself in this situation either.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

...You know, a legendary artifact sword that carried its own antimagic field or similar effect could be a fun toy to center a campaign plot around.

1 to 50 of 385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why don't we see everyone with weapons enchanted with anti-magic Field? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.