| Alexander Riggs |
In the text of the spell antimagic field, it states that "Certain spells, such as wall of force, [i]prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field." While it calls out those three spells in particular, the phrasing of the statement indicates that they are example, and not necessarily an exhaustive list.
Looking at those three particular spells, none of their descriptions mentions that they are unaffected by an antimagic field: that information is only included on antimagic field's description. The only connections I can see between these spells are 1) they are all powerful "wall" spells, and 2) they are resistant to being dispelled by dispel magic.
It seems unusual to say "certain spells" unless the intent was specifically to be vague, and allow GMs a certain amount of wiggle room: if it was something inherent to the spells, it seems like it would be worth mentioning in the spell's descriptions, like how it says that they can't be affected by dispel magic. Similarly, since this spell itself wouldn't be updated when future products came out, and any future spells that would be immune to an antimagic field would need to have that information included in their descriptions anyway, the vagueness doesn't seem to be to intended just to allow for future spells, either.
With all of that in mind, how unreasonable would it be to houserule that antilife shell falls into the category of certain spells that are unaffected by antimagic field? It's also a powerful "wall" spell (a higher level than wall of force, in fact), although it lacks the resistance to dispel magic.
| Nothing |
I wouldn't make Antilife Shell unaffected by Antimagic Field, but I think it would be a fine house rule. It should be clear what exactly is covered (all wall spells, level 4+ wall spells, or some list of particular spells), but in any case I don't see it as having much impact on balance (Antimagic is still extremely powerful in the same niche situations it always was).