Antimagic Field affects whom...


Rules Questions

Sczarni

OK, I get that it affects everyone everything in the area of emanation. But the question I have is this: Is the emanation "the center of the caster" making them victim to the spell, or is the emanation "centered on the skin of the caster" making them have all their bonuses and such?

In other words, does it function like you are casting a spell on yourself or an area? Nowhere (and I have now looked for like 35 minutes online) does anywhere answer this. Most simply complain that it is to powerful... well, if it turns your mage into a bare skinned goofball with no casting and very few hit points, it doesn't seem too powerful to me.

(for tonight I am going to run it as affecting the caster too, despite all common sense to the contrary (why would a mage do that to themselves????))


The field "surrounds" you, so yes, it would kill your spellcasting.

The reason you would cast it on yourself? You already have your summons out and your opponent does not.


Far as I know it always turned my Loremaster (or other casters) into a bare-skinned goofball with no casting. He is inevitably within the AoE of the emanation. As to why, well generally he'd try to seriously avoid such happenstance but if the foe got hurt more than him and his companions by being stripped of their magic then so be it. Also keep in mind Antimagic Field is invisible and has that (D) for dismissible. I could see him using it to soak up an expected or anticipated heavy magical barrage only to drop it on his turn to allow himself and companions to light the other guys up (aka "Awww shucks did the poor little ole dragon and his priesthood waste their nova on us not so actually surprised adventurers")

Or the shenanigans multiple high level casters can potentially pull off:
Wizard: Dismisses Antimagic Field then launches favorite Quickened blast/debuff, Cleric then launches his favorite debuff/blast and then casts Quickened Antimagic Field then reverse the process ... and yes I've actually seen such shenanigans in action albeit only once a long time back. And it was almost as good as the two rogues behind a door trick first time I saw that:

Spoiler:
Both Rogues success with Listen/Perception hear party outside door of room, party doesn't hear stealthy Rogues, Rogue One move action open door, attack action with sneak, Second Rogue attack with sneak, move action close door ... bleeding party meatshield stares pathetically at still closed door, ouchie!

Sczarni

Arachnofiend... NO NO NO NO... I don't give a rat's behind if it "kills your spellcasting." My question was: Does it affect the spellcaster? As in: do all of the spell caster's items cease to function. Not spells he attempts to cast from then on or spells he has in the area, or spells blah blah blah blah like the other hour I spent looking.

Or put it another way: Why would a Level 11+ wizard go from a mage armor + other spells protecting his behind person to a no ac added, no hit points added, no nothing added, d6 HD bare naked npc with a stick? I would rule that a mage would have to roll against their INT to even attempt such foolishness. I mean, a fighter, at that level gets 3 attacks per round, with all the feats they have... and so what? They only have a +1 to hit sword now... +11 BAB means the mage would get hit almost guaranteed every time they swung! So take three hits and call a new character sheet.

Anyway, I ran it that it did affect the caster, and lo and behold, if they had left it running against the two level 20 fighters... well, they would have been paste. As it was, they managed to take 31 points of damage from a single attack (the other fighter had to use two moves to get to them). The irony, of course, is that the fighters only had +4 perception (really... look up Infernal Champions and start laughing). So they couldn't spot the invisible square 75% of the time (ie. target square)). So the caster dropped the spell real quick and moved 5'. Duh... where did he go George, where did he go? (Improved Invisibility kicked back on)

Anyway, if there were some definitive answer to whether the caster (caster's gear perhaps is a better way of saying it) is affected - that is the question I am looking to get answered.

I give you props for the usage of summoned monsters... but then the other mage just has to close on you and ignore them (the summoned mobs can't attack into the area without going POOF!) and it becomes a stick fight between two grown men in dresses.

Sczarni

Kayerloth, I like and accept both your uses of the spell and the rogues. LOL. The reason there was any question was because the wording on the spell says it "surrounds you" and "moves with you"... which might be taken to mean "it is AROUND YOU, not ON/IN YOU" - the question being the word "surrounds" (as an emanation did it "start from your skin" or does it "start from within you"). An argument was made for both interpretations of the verbiage. Also the "centered on you" was not a concern per se, as that just was pointing towards whence it moves and so on, as normal for a spell.

Argument of the use: a cube of force "surrounds" you... but you are inside of it (ie, not affected by it).

Field versus shield, I guess, would end up being the best way to see it.

Sczarni

Also, here is another reason to question the voracity of the accepted "mage is screwed" idea:

Spellbreaker

Price 71,600 gp; Slot none; CL 12th; Weight 4 lbs.; Aura strong abjuration

Only one end of this iron-shod +3 quarterstaff has an enhancement bonus. The enhanced end acts as a bane weapon against any creature with the ability to cast spells or use spell-like abilities. As a standard action, the wielder can strike the unenhanced end against the ground while expending one use of mythic power to produce an antimagic field centered on the staff. This effect has a duration of 2 hours. Anyone striking the staff against the ground a second time dismisses the effect. The antimagic field remains in effect if the staff is dropped or disarmed. The staff retains its enhancement bonus and extra damage against spellcasters inside any antimagic field.

Well, looky here, a "centered on" field item that is written to state that it keeps its bonuses... Granted, it is Mythic.

(ps. wouldn't this be great to strap to some sort of siege weapon's ammo?)

So the question regarding this item is this: Is it mythic for still working when the spell is centered on it? Answer seems to be NO (as in, a passive answer to my original question is that items in the "center" still work). The mythic portion is that it works (against spellcasters) in ANY AMF.

So does that mean the answer to the original question is that yes, items/people at the center of the AMF keep their bonuses, because this write-up makes it appear so.

Sczarni

Stormbolts: centered on you (doesn't harm you)
Does Blizzard (centered on you) affect you?
Zone of silence, again, centered on you, doesn't affect you.
Cloak of dreams? You are a creature inside the field... so you fall asleep?

I mean, the list goes on... and it becomes more and more apparent to me that I applied it incorrectly. The AMF doesn't appear to (necessarily) affect the caster/caster's gear.

But then spells like Freezing Sphere use the centered on you to deliver damage to you if you don't get rid of it... so meh. who the hell knows? Piazo? Mod? Anyone?


The fact that the Spellbreaker has to specifically call out that it works in an antimagic field hurts your argument more than it helps, really. It has that line because without it it would cease to function, which would completely defeat the purpose of the item.


Yeah, that item is compelling evidence that they think this is an exception to the normal rules. Yes, all your items are also in an antimagic field, which means they stop working, as do all other Su abilities, powers, etcetera.

Also, "voracity" is "the quality of being voracious", truth is "veracity".

Sczarni

Arachnofiend wrote:
The fact that the Spellbreaker has to specifically call out that it works in an antimagic field hurts your argument more than it helps, really. It has that line because without it it would cease to function, which would completely defeat the purpose of the item.

No, the fact is it works in ANY AMF helps the argument. Here is how: If it didn't say ANY, it would mean that it typically works in THIS AMF. And that other AMFs would cancel it out (like the normal application of two AMFs against each other). The fact that it says "against spellcasters" is also unique, in that the bonus therefore cannot be applied to pure fighter types in ANY AMF (just in this one???!?!?! who knows, that is what we are debating, right? Does the AMF centered on this staff cancel its bonuses while it is in its own AMF???)

Sczarni

seebs wrote:

Yeah, that item is compelling evidence that they think this is an exception to the normal rules. Yes, all your items are also in an antimagic field, which means they stop working, as do all other Su abilities, powers, etcetera.

Yeh, but is the exception that it works in ANY, that it works against any spellcaster, or that it keeps its bonus in this one (implied to not be the exception when they spell out it works in ANY)?

In theory, as I pointed out, if you interpret the meaning as nothing works inside an AMF, then this stick wouldn't get its bonus against any non-spellcaster, ever, while the AMF was up. As the description implies, it gets its bonus normally against everything in its own AMF, but in someone else's AMF, it only works against spellcasters.

ps. voracity was the correct word... the willingness of everyone to "eat up" the idea that the "mage screwed himself" was indeed what I intended to say in that sentence. The veracity of whether the effect on the caster is in the same as everyone else in the field emanating from them is the question.


maouse
Antimagic field for 30 years has effected everything in it. Magic items, spells and the casting of spells. No matter what anyone is going to say is going to convince you otherwise. You have it in your head that you have found some spell hack that no one in 30 years has seen.

Play it as you and your GM wants to.


AMF does, and always has, effect all targets within the field, including the caster.

It would be ridiculous if it didn't.


That's not the voracity of the argument, though, that's the voracity of the other participants in the discussion with respect to that argument.

I am pretty sure the intended meaning of that sentence is "The staff retains the following qualities within any antimagic field: Its enhancement bonus, and its extra damage against spellcasters."

It is probably not intended to say "The staff retains the following qualities when used against spellcasters while in an antimagic field: Its enhancement bonus and its extra damage."

The point being, it's a bane weapon against spellcasters, so it gets extra damage against them, which is a separate property from its enhancement bonus. It retains both of these qualities when in any antimagic field.

I don't think this item helps your case at all, though. It's really just a weirdly-written special case. The default is that, yes, your own antimagic field affects your own abilities and items as well.

That said, I will concede that there's prior art in Pathfinder for a spell with an emanation effect which is obviously not intended to include the caster: Check out wreath of blades. Note that a 20th level caster casting this produces a non-dismissible effect which deals 10d4 damage per round, and since it's an emanation, that means it would be damaging them to, rules-as-written.

That spell is also busted because it mentions a "special" save, but then never actually says what the deal with the special save is. My guess is that they intended to write a spell with a save-for-half if you are standing next to the caster at the start of your turn, and a reactive damage proc if you attack the caster, but then they forgot to actually write that. There's at least one similar spell in the books that has a reactive damage proc.

Liberty's Edge

maouse wrote:

Kayerloth, I like and accept both your uses of the spell and the rogues. LOL. The reason there was any question was because the wording on the spell says it "surrounds you" and "moves with you"... which might be taken to mean "it is AROUND YOU, not ON/IN YOU" - the question being the word "surrounds" (as an emanation did it "start from your skin" or does it "start from within you"). An argument was made for both interpretations of the verbiage. Also the "centered on you" was not a concern per se, as that just was pointing towards whence it moves and so on, as normal for a spell.

Argument of the use: a cube of force "surrounds" you... but you are inside of it (ie, not affected by it).

Field versus shield, I guess, would end up being the best way to see it.

It say "he 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." too. And the caster body is in that area.

PRD wrote:


A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can't see. It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don't extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst's area defines how far from the point of origin the spell's effect extends.

An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres.

and

PRD wrote:


Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don't control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection.

The anti magic field is centred on a corner of the wizard square and he is fully within the area of effect.

Sczarni

So your answer is "shut up and don't question what someone said 30 years ago." because D&D rules have never been re-written or re-interpreted... OK then... thanks for that input. (ps. I am the GM, and I don't usually play with a load of spellcasters, primarily because of things like this that stop a game dead when some uppity player says "nu-uh, it works like this" and makes a valid case for it to do so)

I will add the following to the discussion: if "Two or more antimagic fields sharing any of the same space have no effect on each other" this means that the item listed is not "Mythic" for keeping its bonus in ANY OTHER AMF. (any item that kept it bonuses would keep them because they would not be effected by each other)

Which leads to the "Mythic" ability being that it keeps it bonus (against spellcasters) at all.

OK. I can go with that. Normal items don't keep their bonuses in the field. This stick is mythic because it works against spellcasters at all while still emanating a AMF.

Thanks to those of you who have helped. Bugger off to those who didn't even try. ;) jk, of course.

It is simply a ridiculous spell. Either way you rule it.

Liberty's Edge

maouse wrote:

Also, here is another reason to question the voracity of the accepted "mage is screwed" idea:

Spellbreaker

Price 71,600 gp; Slot none; CL 12th; Weight 4 lbs.; Aura strong abjuration

Only one end of this iron-shod +3 quarterstaff has an enhancement bonus. The enhanced end acts as a bane weapon against any creature with the ability to cast spells or use spell-like abilities. As a standard action, the wielder can strike the unenhanced end against the ground while expending one use of mythic power to produce an antimagic field centered on the staff. This effect has a duration of 2 hours. Anyone striking the staff against the ground a second time dismisses the effect. The antimagic field remains in effect if the staff is dropped or disarmed. The staff retains its enhancement bonus and extra damage against spellcasters inside any antimagic field.

Well, looky here, a "centered on" field item that is written to state that it keeps its bonuses... Granted, it is Mythic.

(ps. wouldn't this be great to strap to some sort of siege weapon's ammo?)

So the question regarding this item is this: Is it mythic for still working when the spell is centered on it? Answer seems to be NO (as in, a passive answer to my original question is that items in the "center" still work). The mythic portion is that it works (against spellcasters) in ANY AMF.

So does that mean the answer to the original question is that yes, items/people at the center of the AMF keep their bonuses, because this write-up makes it appear so.

It explain that a specific item has a specific effect that break the normal rules and from that you deduce that the normal rules are different from what they say? ^_^

Sczarni

Diego Rossi wrote:


PRD wrote:


A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can't see. It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don't extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst's area defines how far from the point of origin the spell's effect extends.

An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres.

See, that right there is the problem with how the spell is stated... it "surrounds you"... not it starts at your heart and goes outward, or it starts in a corner and goes out... which was the original instigator of the question of "surrounds you" = not in you/not affecting your own items or "surrounds you" = from the grid intersection despite a poorly worded spell description.

Liberty's Edge

maouse wrote:

Stormbolts: centered on you (doesn't harm you)

Because the spell say:

"The bolts do not harm natural vegetation or creatures in the area you wish to exclude from damage."

maouse wrote:


Does Blizzard (centered on you) affect you?
PRD wrote:


Blizzard (Sp): At 15th level, you can create a savage winter storm centered on you. This power acts as control winds, but in addition the entire area (not including the “eye” at the center of the storm) is affected as a sleet storm and all in the area are exposed to extreme cold. You may use this ability once per day.
maouse wrote:


Zone of silence, again, centered on you, doesn't affect you.
PRD wrote:
By casting zone of silence, you manipulate sound waves in your immediate vicinity so that you and those within the spell's area can converse normally, yet no one outside can hear your voices or any other noises from within, including language-dependent or sonic spell effects. This effect is centered on you and moves with you. Anyone who enters the zone immediately becomes subject to its effects, but those who leave are no longer affected. Note, however, that a successful DC 20 Linguistics check to read lips can still reveal what's said inside a zone of silence.

Again a very specific effect.

maouse wrote:


Cloak of dreams? You are a creature inside the field... so you fall asleep?
PRD wrote:
You are surrounded by a soporific aroma that causes living creatures that begin their turn or end their movement within 5 feet of you to fall asleep for 1 minute. Creatures must save each time they begin their turn or end their movement within the cloak of dreams, even if they have previously saved against the effect. Sleeping creatures are helpless but can be awakened with a standard action or after being wounded. Creatures with the scent special quality have a –4 penalty on their saves.

Technically, yes as it don't list the caster as an exceptions.

maouse wrote:


I mean, the list goes on... and it becomes more and more apparent to me that I applied it incorrectly. The AMF doesn't appear to (necessarily) affect the caster/caster's gear.

But then spells like Freezing Sphere use the centered on you to deliver damage to you if you don't get rid of it... so meh. who the hell knows? Piazo? Mod? Anyone?

You continue to cite spells that have specific exceptions and try to say that they give the rules. No, they give exceptions.


3E did a lot of great things for D&D, and the attempt to standardize the forms of area-of-effect spells and the like really is a good thing, mostly.

Mostly.

It does result in a lot of things that don't quite fit their intended designs -- for instance, emanations centered on creatures or objects don't quite fit the intent of the rules for emanations centered on an area.

But in the case of antimagic field, the intent seems to be that you are the center of an area all of which, including the parts containing you, is entirely magic-free. Except for really specialized items like mythic stuff.

Sczarni

Diego Rossi wrote:
It explain that a specific item has a specific effect that break the normal rules and from that you deduce that the normal rules are different from what they say? ^_^

From that I inferred that the question of how it worked might be in question. And since the "normal rules" as you pointed out answered the question of how this spell works, it is no longer in question. All spells with area affects always affect the caster in the area. So the person falling asleep from their own Cloak of Dreams, while silly, is 100% RAW. The person summoning their own Storm can suck those 20d6 they just called down on their own head. Etc... there are LOADS of these spells that don't specifically state the caster is immune. So there was and still is room to question it. Sorry if you disagree with the fact that some spells are just poorly worded, and this is one of them.

I played it as affecting the spell caster, and still will, after finding and examining the Mythic item. The conclusion that a normal item wouldn't keep the bonus at all is the only one that can be drawn from the description contrasted to the spell description.

Liberty's Edge

maouse wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


PRD wrote:


A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can't see. It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don't extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst's area defines how far from the point of origin the spell's effect extends.

An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres.

See, that right there is the problem with how the spell is stated... it "surrounds you"... not it starts at your heart and goes outward, or it starts in a corner and goes out... which was the original instigator of the question of "surrounds you" = not in you/not affecting your own items or "surrounds you" = from the grid intersection despite a poorly worded spell description.

You are aware that the developers try to write spells 8and all teh rules) in readable English and that you should read all the rules and use them together?

Writing in the spell "you cast the spell on a corner of your square and it spread (see the spread part of the magic rules) from there" is way more cumbersome than the current text of the spell.

Sczarni

Diego Rossi wrote:

You are aware that the developers try to write spells (and all the rules) in readable English and that you should read all the rules and use them together?

Writing in the spell "you cast the spell on a corner of your square and it spread (see the spread part of the magic rules) from there" is way more cumbersome than the current text of the spell.

Yep. 100%. Check. Which is why I was asking if anyone knew what the actual rules were regarding this one spell. You let me know. Thank you. And the discussion seebs and I had helped me agree with the idea presented.

As I pointed out: it is a silly spell any way you rule it; either the spell caster gets protected from magic and keeps all their own magic, kinda uber; or they get protected from magic and gets reeeeeemed by any non-magic user of the same level for casting a single defensive spell. Silly. (and all this is ignoring the various "spell shaping" threads I have read in the last several hours which might allow someone to "bubble up" inside of this in a single square where magic worked)

But as people have pointed out, it can certainly have its uses. Cast after summoning. Protect, rotation with other casters, protect again.

Liberty's Edge

maouse wrote:
The person summoning their own Storm can suck those 20d6 they just called down on their own head.

If you want to continue to cite spells or supernatural powers, please link them. What Storm? There is no spell with that name in the PRD and 387 hit searching for it.

BTW, I added the relevant piece about to Blizzard to the reply above. It say "(not including the “eye” at the center of the storm)" about the AoE.

Sczarni

Diego Rossi wrote:
maouse wrote:
The person summoning their own Storm can suck those 20d6 they just called down on their own head.

If you want to continue to cite spells or supernatural powers, please link them. What Storm? There is no spell with that name in the PRD and 387 hit searching for it.

BTW, I added the relevant piece about to Blizzard to the reply above. It say "(not including the “eye” at the center of the storm)" about the AoE.

No, I'm good. I got my answer. Thanks.


I don't think it's silly at all! I think it's intentional that the spell is very restricted in utility for casters, and dangerous to use with martials around. That's the balancing factor and the reason you can't just use it every time you want to kill an enemy caster; you're also defenseless.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Antimagic Field affects whom... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.