| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does antimagic field block line of effect?
Take a spell like dominate monster or glitterdust and imagine both the caster and the target are outside the antimagic field, but the field is in between both of them.
Can the spell be cast or is the antimagic field suppression of magic considered a solid barrier on what relates to magic and thus blocks the line of effect required for the spell to be cast?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting question.
The antimagic field does block the line of effect.
From the rules about Line of Effect you've kindly linked to:
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.
This means that for any point the caster wishes to affect, she must be able to affect any intervening point between herself and the point of her choosing. She can't affect inside the field so she can't affect on the other side of the field.
I do not like some consequences of this rule, that an infinitely small point of antimagic midway between two casters prevents them from mind-controlling each other.
On the other hand, I like that an infinitely big antimagic plane perpendicular to the line of effect between these casters does prevent them from the same mind-control - or summons or whatnot.
I get that one can't cast Dominate Monster on someone in the next room. I don't like that one still can't target through a closed window and I don't like that magic has to go in a straight line, as long as the caster can see/accurately sense the target.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does Antimagic Field block line of effect?
No.
Antimagic Field's effects are limited to whatever is inside its range. The only exception are area spells, that have their center inside the antimagic field.In your scenario, even if you imagine your spell cast as an infinitely small magic particle that travels along the line of effect towards its intended target, this spell would only be suppressed inside the antimagic field, but once it leaves this area it is fully functional again:
Antimagic does not dispel magic; it suppresses it. Once a magical effect is no longer affected by the antimagic (the antimagic fades, the center of the effect moves away, and so on), the magic returns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But how could a suppressed effect move?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But how could a suppressed effect move?
As an example, the center of effect of Greater magic weapon is the weapon on which the spell is cast. When the weapon moves with its owner the center of effect moves.
You can make the same argument with Magic circle against evil and any other spell centered on an item or person.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being able to target through an anti-magic field wouldn't be much different then than being able to cast a non-instaneous spell into it, it would only be suppressed.
This isn't the case.
One can't cast Greater Magic Weapon on a weapon in such a field and for the same reason, one can't cast across of such a field.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One can't cast Greater Magic Weapon on a weapon in such a field and for the same reason, one can't cast across of such a field.
He asked how a suppressed effect can move, not if you can cast an effect in the AM field and have it work after the AM field moves.
A suppressed magical effect is something that is preexisting the field or was cast outside the field and then entered it.
Being able to target through an anti-magic field wouldn't be much different then than being able to cast a non-instaneous spell into it, it would only be suppressed.
This isn't the case.
Actually not what the spell says:
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.
The effect is not dispelled, it is suppressed, i.e. it doesn't work while in the AM field.
If it is or it isn't possible to cast a spell in the field and it being active but suppressed is something that the spell text doesn't clarify.Experience with previous versions of the game says that the spell is disrupted and will have no effect even after the AM field moves away or end, but experience with previous versions of the game has little bearing on the current version.
As written, as an example, a lighting bolt cast from outside the field at a creature behind the other side of the field, will affect that creature, while the part of the spell within the field will be suppressed and have no effect.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier.
The AM field spell very clearly says that it isn't a solid barrier. So it needs a text that says that it blocks line of effect to block it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not disputing that a solid barrier blocks line of effect. I am saying there are other things besides a solid barrier that block line of effect.
An anti-magic field on the path blocks the path of magic, so from the sentence just before the one you've bolded, an anti-magic field blocks the path of effect.
About the examples of movement of a magical effect in the field, those you've given are carried by something else, an object or a creature, a target that isn't suppressed by the field. If the magic effect isn't carried by a target, it cannot cross the field. This is what I was saying.
The lightning bolt isn't an accurate example for several reasons, I'd like to propose another one, magic missile, as it requires targetting.
Can one target something inside the field? I say yes, you say no. You say the missiles would fly into the field then disappear, I say they wouldn't fly in the first place as there is no line of effect.
About the lightning bolt, it doesn't require targetting, it simply progresses, square by square, centimetre by centimetre, Planck length by Planck length - whatever you use a metric for your narration. This progression is part of the magical effect and as such is suppressed when entering the field. Since all of the effect is suppressed inside the field, the bolt doesn't progress hence doesn't emerge from the other side.
Edit: @Diego Rossi, apologies for the poor formatting and the lack of quotes to the point I am answering to, as well as for the order of the answers. On my phone, the virtual keyboard isn't co-operative.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We simply disagree on the meaning of "suppress" in Pathfinder.
To me, reading the AM Field spell, it doesn't seem to cancel and disrupt the spell, it only stops it from expressing itself within the area. The spell (if cast from outside the area) exists for its full duration, simply it has no effect in the AM Field area.
You instead think that it is disrupted.
Without a developer statement, the spell text is sufficiently ambiguous that both interpretations are possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the magic effect isn't carried by a target, it cannot cross the field. This is what I was saying.
Since you're so fond of Planck lengths, magic effects like Magic Missile are carried by wave-particles called "Arcano-Photons" and supernatural abilites are carried by Hex-Bosons, ... Problem solved. :3
Nowhere in the spell description of Antimagic Field does it say that it blocks line of effect or prevents casting through the field. The spell clearly states which effects it has, and these are not among them.
And nowhere in the rules to line of effect does it say that it's blocked by an Antimagic Field or local suppression of magical effects on the way to the target.
Indeed.
How would you deal with the bead a fireball if mid-flight, it were caught in an anti-magic field? - ignoring targetting for now by assuming the field sprung into existence while the bead was already flying, ahead of its path.
I'd have it drop to the ground, inert, at the point where it entered the field.
Genuinely asking so as to better grasp possible flaws of my reasoning.
|
|
I was editing the post, here is what I was adding:
Without a developer statement, the spell text is sufficiently ambiguous that both interpretations are possible.
Edit: as a magic missile is instantaneous, the net effect is identical, but, in my interpretation, a Delayed blast fireball, if the creature with the AM Field moves away, will reappear and explode at the set time.
A little side note: the AM effect is a 10' emanation around the caster. That means 10' from the outer border of the caster area. A large creature will generate a sphere of 15' radius, a 20'x20 gargantua creature will generate a 20' radius sphere, and so on.
|
|
Indeed.
How would you deal with the bead a fireball if mid-flight, it were caught in an anti-magic field? - ignoring targetting for now by assuming the field sprung into existence while the bead was already flying, ahead of its path.
I'd have it drop to the ground, inert, at the point where it entered the field.
Genuinely asking so as to better grasp possible flaws of my reasoning.
It works as the summons, it disappears as long as it is within the AM field area and reappears at the other side.
How do you work with spell resistant creatures and burst spells?
Do they generate an area behind them where the burst spell can't enter?
It is possible to get total cover from burst spells standing behind a spell resistant creature?
Wall of fire? A swarm with spell resistance that resists a wall of fire will create an area where it doesn't exist that other creatures can use to pass the Wall without taking damage?
Magic doesn't follow the logic of our everyday world. If an area is unaffected by magic it doesn't mean that magic can't enter that area, it means that magic has no effect on that area.
Magic doesn't follow the rules of physics of our universe but it nonetheless has its own internal coherence. The same causes will have the same effects, similar causes will probably have similar effects.
Yes, a bubble/shell - empty inside, by opposition to a ball, full inside - of anti-magic will protect what is inside from outside magic.
I am not sure that anti-magic fields and magic resistance necessarily stem from the same root. Causes for spell resistance are varied. In some cases, I can see a continuum between SR and AM, in others, I don't. From there, I cannot conclude for a general case.
- You sure unbeatable SR is the same as AM? This would mean unbeatable SR only suppresses spells -
A creature is usually a lacunar surface, a swarm certainly is, but should it be the case where a creature occupies all the space, like an ooze that for some reason has AM, and the magic effect in question doesn't go around corners, yes, one would be protected behind it.
As for targetting:
If said AM creature is solid - which is most of the time -, there is a solid screen so this case is obvious, AM or not, no line of effect.
If said AM creature isn't solid, such as a water elemental or an insubstantial creature, yet still occupies at least a point on every line from the point of origin of the magic to the target, then, yes, the target has cover.
In short, a line of effect has to be continuous, this is what a line is. Interrupting the line blocks the effect. If at any point of this line, magic wouldn't be able to manifest, then the line is interrupted at this point and the caster doesn't have line of effect on any point further along.
@willuwontu, spells do travel to their destination, this is exactly what the line of effect is.
- as said in my first post in this thread, I do not like it so. However, this is the rules forum^^ -
Summons have shaky coherence on several points, there are several dissonant points between their own explanation as of what they are. As such, I'd rather not discuss them here for it would require clarifying how they work in the first place, something outside of the scope of this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nowhere in the spell description of Antimagic Field does it say that it blocks line of effect or prevents casting through the field.
I agree with the first affirmation in your sentence, which makes me tend to agree antimagic field does not block line of effect. But I do not agree with the second affirmation. The first paragraph of the spell says "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." there impervious is a word I had to search but it seems to mean that things cannot go through, they cannot pass. I tend to agree with you it is not written it prevents casting through, but given the text and the idea of the spell, I understand someone can have the idea the space is impervious to magic, hence magic cannot go through, including casting through.
The spell clearly states which effects it has, and these are not among them.
I disagree, if the effects were clear I would have not opened this thread and people answering here would agree on what are the effects.
And nowhere in the rules to line of effect does it say that it's blocked by an Antimagic Field or local suppression of magical effects on the way to the target.
I do agree with you, which makes me tend to agree AMF does not block line of effect. Still, the magic rules say line of effect is blocked by a solid barrier, and despite the AMF is not solid to mundane matter, it describes itself as impervious to magic, hence solid to magic, which gives an argument to those who interpret it blocks line of effect.
AMF does not block line of effect, but it does suppress spells that pass through it. Note that ranged spells do not necessarily travel to their destination though, for instance, glitterdust is created at it's target area, it doesn't travel to get there.
Time spent in the field does count against the duration of the spell, so a weapon with greater magic weapon cast on it would continue to have its duration tick down while the wielder would receive no benefits from the spell during the time spent in the field.
Due to this suppression, I would rule thusly on how casting through an AMF to the other side. Instantaneous effects that require traveling*, E.G. Fireball, Magic Missile, Lightning Bolt, Rays, etc., would not be able to pass through an AMF. Non-instantaneous spells that travel, E.G. Roaming Pit, Aqueous Orb, Flaming Sphere, etc., would appear at the edge of the AMF on the side they traveled into/were when the spell ended/moved. Spells that don't require travel, E.G. Glitterdust, Dominate Person, Entangle, Spontaneous Immolation, Wall of Thorns, etc., would all work as normal.
Thanks willuwontu, I think I tend to agree with your interpretation the most.
When I asked about how a suppressed effect moves I was not asking about a buff on a sword or a spell of type 'effect' like a ray, I was taking about my opening example and directing my question more specifically to Theaitetos following affirmation:
In your scenario, even if you imagine your spell cast as an infinitely small magic particle that travels along the line of effect towards its intended target, this spell would only be suppressed inside the antimagic field, but once it leaves this area it is fully functional again:
I understood here he was referring to the process of casting a dominate person as a particle of magic travelling to the target as a resource to understand the need of line of effect by magic, and if it finds a solid barrier, it cannot reach the target. He was saying that particle of magic was suppressed in the AMF but I understood he interpreted that particle of magic continues to travel and can reach the target.
That is why I asked him, if that particle of magic was suppressed on reaching the AMF, how could it continue traveling that same round to reach the target? We were talking here about something like dominate person but a spell like fireball has probably even bigger issues with AMF here.
Sorry to say this but you derailed my questions by taking the discussion into points that my example was trying to avoid because I already have solid answers for them:
- magic on objects/creatures: it is clear magic weapon and similar stuff travel with the target and resume once the target emerges out of the field (magic weapon and blur are examples of this case)
- non-instantaneous spells of 'effect' type: it is clear how a magic effect moves and it is clear it is suppressed once it reaches the field, and that the effect reappears and can be used if there is remaining time for it once the field disappears (spiritual weapon, flaming sphere, etc.)
- instantaneous spells of 'effect' type: maybe a bit more tricky to grasp, they work as the previous category, are suppressed when entering in contact with the field, but because they are instantaneous, they have always already disappeared when the field ceases to exist (scorching ray, ray of enfeeblement and other rays are a good example of this)
- area spells of line and cone types: things start to get unclear here, these spells create an area which is affected, applying the antimagic field and area rules by RAW, you just remove the antimagic field from the affected area of the spell; but if you think on an area that initiates in the caster and progresses, which is the natural understanding many people have when they cast cone of cold or lightning bolt and similar, the discussion begins on the interpretation of whether there is some kind of effect that progresses and whether that progression might be blocked or not by the field (cone of cold and lightning bolt are good examples)
- area and target spells with close, medium or long range: this is the case of my question, where there is no effect traveling, but line of effect is required to cast (glitterdust, dominate person, etc.)
- area and target spells not typed as 'effect' that include an actual effect travelling in their description: things get muddy here, the area of the spell is created at range, but despite the spell is not categorized like creating an effect, the description actually describes an effect moving and gives rules for it (fireball that creates a pea of fire and calls for attack rolls to cast it through a hole is the paradigmatic example)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
- area spells of line and cone types: things start to get unclear here, this spells create an area which is affected, applying the antimagic field and area rules by RAW, you just remove the antimagic field from the affected area of the spell; but if you think on an area that initiates in the caster and progresses, which is the natural understanding many people have when they cast cone of cold or lightning bolt and similar, the discussion begins on the interpretation of whether there is some kind of effect that progresses and whether that progression might be blocked or not by the field (cone of cold and lightning bolt are good examples).
If the AM field is impervious to magic and blocks it, it will create an unaffected "shadow" behind it for burst and emanation spells, while spread spells will circle it, but doing could reduce or reshape the total area affected.
Burst, Emanation, or Spread: Most spells that affect an area function as a burst, an emanation, or a spread. In each case, you select the spell’s point of origin and measure its effect from that point.
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.
A spread spell extends out like a burst but can turn corners. You select the point of origin, and the spell spreads out a given distance in all directions. Figure the area the spell effect fills by taking into account any turns the spell effect takes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the first affirmation in your sentence, which makes me tend to agree antimagic field does not block line of effect. But I do not agree with the second affirmation. The first paragraph of the spell says "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." there impervious is a word I had to search but it seems to mean that things cannot go through, they cannot pass. I tend to agree with you it is not written it prevents casting through, but given the text and the idea of the spell, I understand someone can have the idea the space is impervious to magic, hence magic cannot go through, including casting through.
This is all true, but line of effect in and of itself is not a magic effect:
Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.
Line of effect is not a magical effect, but something a caster does before creating the actual magic effect, therefore it is not subject to the suppression of magical effects in an Antimagic Field.
And let's be honest here: Line of effect is not something that actually exists [no traveling magic particles], it's merely a tool for GMs & players, a rule's construct, that is used to help determine which areas/targets can be affected by a spell.
Two more reasons not to block line of effect:
Can you cast a Wall of Force into the area of an Antimagic Field from the outside? If line of effect is blocked, you cannot, even though the spell description explicitly says that Wall of Force remains unaffected.
Is Antimagic Field actually a spell with "Range: Personal", that grants you complete magic immunity? I'd say no, but if Antimagic Field blocked line of effect, then yes, it would turn into the spell "Magical Immunity" with "Range: Personal", because the rules say:
Line of Effect: A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creature, or object to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst's center point, a cone-shaped burst's starting point, a cylinder's circle, or an emanation's point of origin).
Area: 10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you
Antimagic Field would block its own line of effect, since it's an emanation spell, and would therefore prevent itself from working on any area outside of the caster, turning it into a spell with "Range: Personal" and the caster being immune to all magic because line of effect upon the caster were blocked. Quite the overpowered spell, laughing even at a golem's magic immunity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The line of effect is as much part of the spellcasting as anything else. The line needs to be present while the magic is being created/gathered/harvested/whatever. As such, the line being disrupted impedes the apparition of the magic effect.
How do you know there aren't magic particles travelling? How magic works or for that matter how physics work in Pathfinder is not explained. The rules only show the results of the laws of the universe, not the laws themselves.
In fact, I think the rule for line of effect is a strong hint towards magic having some underlying law there of particles/string/dipole/wave/whatever type.
However, this is the rules forum, narration matters not and therefore narrations may differ. I narrate a successful attack that deals some damage to a full-health character as a blow that she was forced to dodge, putting her out of breath and in poor footing to dodge further oncoming ones, other often narrate such an attack as drawing blood. It doesn't matter with the rules as long as the damage is correctly sustracted from the total H.P.
How the line of effect is narrated doesn't matter, what matters is that the line of effect is how magic works and as such, it is the results of the underlying laws of physics to which are bound universes governed by the Pathfinder ruleset.
By the existence of the line of effect, the game asks you to check at all times of spell casting that the target remains a valid one for the travelling of the spell from the caster to the target. Besides spells of which the charge can be held, one can't cast a spell without a valid target.
Antimagic field doesn't block its own line of effect, otherwise it wouldn't exist. Two antimagic fields can overlap, they don't suppress one another though they are both created by spells and as such at least one should cancel the other. How does one reconcile overlapping magically created AM fields and suppression of magic in such a field? Well, specific trumps general, the rules say it works. The same goes for a single emanation of AM, it works because the rules says so.
Same for Wall of Force and the other spells, those work because they work. Maybe their creator took into account the existence of AM while researching those spells but again, this is matter of narration.
Also, the text for AM field is about an already-existent Wall of Force on which an AM field would be placed. The casting of Wall of Force isn't Wall of Force, it still requires line of effect hence is prevented from happening by an intervening AM field between the caster and where she would have placed the Wall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At any rate, as Diego Rossi said above, both interpretations of the rules have internal coherence. As such, it is a matter of deciding which makes more sense, of interpreting what was meant by the author. Neither the rules nor the narration break with either point of view. Choose the one you feel most comfortable with and make sure your table is on the same wavelength, as as this thread has demonstrated, this isn't an obvious clear-cut case.
How does one reconcile overlapping magically created AM fields and suppression of magic in such a field? Well, specific trumps general, the rules say it works. The same goes for a single emanation of AM, it works because the rules says so.
Where? Please quote the relevant part: Where exactly does it say that a SINGLE Antimagic Field doesn't block itself?
How the line of effect is narrated doesn't matter, what matters is that the line of effect is how magic works and as such, it is the results of the underlying laws of physics to which are bound universes governed by the Pathfinder ruleset.
Again, please quote the exact parts of the rules that say that line of effect is a magical effect. Don't tell people about your assumptions, show us where in the rules it says so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The relevant part of the rules that shows a single AM field doesn't block itself is the spell entry itself. Its existence is proof that it doesn't block itself, since, you know, it works.
I am not claiming either way whether the line of effect is magic in itself. I do not know what the laws of the universe are, I only know the rules of the game, from which I can make an educated guess about these laws.
From there, if a pane of transparent glass blocks line of effect, if someone entirely behind a thin pane of glass from the point of the view of the caster, in an otherwise featureless plain, then this someone is protected from Dominate Monster. This is the intent of the designers. By this token, saying that magic is blocked from happening by glass but not by an intervening AM plane is not coherent.
The relevant part of the rules that shows a single AM field doesn't block itself is the spell entry itself.
Quote please.
Its existence is proof that it doesn't block itself, since, you know, it works.
Sure it works, with "range: personal", nobody claimed otherwise.
However, You claimed that the rules explicitly state that Antimagic Field does not blocks its own line of effect: "Antimagic field doesn't block its own line of effect[...] The same goes for a single emanation of AM, it works because the rules says so."
So show us where it does say so, or stop claiming "because the rules say so".
I am not claiming either way whether the line of effect is magic in itself. I do not know what the laws of the universe are, I only know the rules of the game, from which I can make an educated guess about these laws.
No claims and educated guesses please. The question of this thread is "Does Antimagic Field block line of effect?"
The spell description states that Antimagic Field blocks "magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities".
So unless it's written anywhere that line of effect is one of those, then it is not blocked by Antimagic Field.
From there, if a pane of transparent glass blocks line of effect, if someone entirely behind a thin pane of glass from the point of the view of the caster, in an otherwise featureless plain, then this someone is protected from Dominate Monster. This is the intent of the designers. By this token, saying that magic is blocked from happening by glass but not by an intervening AM plane is not coherent.
What are you talking about? You're delving into more and more "intent of the designers" and guesses about what is coherent in a world of magic.
There are exactly 3 ways in which Antimagic Field could block line of effect:
1) The spell description explicitly says so. But it does not.
2) The spell description says that AM is a solid barrier without >1ft² holes [which would trigger the "solid barrier" rule], but it does not.
3) Line of effect is described as a magical effect, spell, spell-like ability, or supernatural effect. But it does not (afaik).
Besides, blocking line of effect would make Mythic Antimagic Field or Source Severance pretty weak, as every enemy could immediately tell which schools/categories of magic are not suppressed, because they could say: "Hah, this spell only blocks my transmuation & evocation line of effect, but my other lines of effect can see!"
How utterly lame.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The tone of this discussion has gone away from friendly rules talk and also you two are going in loops over the same arguments, which sincerely does not help and bloats the thread. I see you are not going to converge in any kind of agreement. I pledge you please to let it be.
Diego Rossi brought up something interesting about bursts, spreads and emanations. They do spread from their point of origin, and they need line of effect from their point of origin to the affected squares. Hence if you cast a lightning bolt and line of effect is not blocked, the bolt will just "traverse" the AMF and affect the squares behind the field, despite there is some spatial continuity broken. Despite the rules say you need line of effect, the spell seems to just happen to manifest in its whole area at the same time without hindrance of some squares in the middle being suppressed. That seems counter-intuitive to me, but it is how it works if we accept line of effect is not blocked by a layer impervious to magic.
On the other hand, if the line of effect is broken (which I am coming to agree is not clearly stated by the AMF spell and thus not how it works), the emanation spells would start to surround around the edge of the AMF. Which also seems counter-intuitive to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed, Balacertar.
Theaitetos, I do not like receiving orders nor having my behaviour dictated by others.
I have made my point clear and coherent. Whether one agrees with it or not is not the matter. The rule is unclear and either way could have been better written as shown by the above discussion.
*bows*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The relevant part of the rules that shows a single AM field doesn't block itself is the spell entry itself. Its existence is proof that it doesn't block itself, since, you know, it works.
I am not claiming either way whether the line of effect is magic in itself. I do not know what the laws of the universe are, I only know the rules of the game, from which I can make an educated guess about these laws.
From there, if a pane of transparent glass blocks line of effect, if someone entirely behind a thin pane of glass from the point of the view of the caster, in an otherwise featureless plain, then this someone is protected from Dominate Monster. This is the intent of the designers. By this token, saying that magic is blocked from happening by glass but not by an intervening AM plane is not coherent.
Solid material against a field that isn't solid?
It is like saying that as a pane of glass will stop a breeze, a magnetic field will stop it.Even if I play devil advocate, I am in favor of AM field blocking LoE for spells, but not I am not ok with arguments that that are incoherent. Especially when you claim that they are coherent.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, if the line of effect is broken (which I am coming to agree is not clearly stated by the AMF spell and thus not how it works), the emanation spells would start to surround around the edge of the AMF. Which also seems counter-intuitive to me.
Emanation spells do that with every obstacle if the emanation covers an area sufficiently large.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a spell is meant to block line of effect, it would say so, example:
You create a wall of glittering motes that suppresses or even negates any magical effect passing through it. The wall appears to have no actual substance and does not physically obstruct or impede anything attempting to move through it. However, the wall exerts a powerful anti-magical effect. Any magic item or magical spell or effect of your caster level or lower that passes through the wall is suppressed for 1 round per level. Spells or effects with durations expire normally, even while thus suppressed. A spell or effect with a duration greater than that of the suppression effect resumes functioning normally when the suppression ends. The wall affects all magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, magical items, and any effects stemming from them that pass through the wall. The wall does not suppress a creature’s ability to cast spells, use spell-like abilities, or any other sort of limited-use abilities even if the wall suppresses a particular application of those abilities. However, if a creature with magical abilities that are constant or otherwise always active passes through the wall, those abilities are suppressed for the normal duration.
The wall blocks line of effect, so no spell or effect can pass through the wall, but it does not block line of sight. Magic items or spell effects with a higher caster level than yours are unaffected by the wall of suppression. The wall does not affect artifacts, anything stemming from the direct action of a deity, or similarly powerful sorts of magic.
Please notice that Wall of Suppression has pretty much the exact same description as Antimagic Field, it's clearly meant as a more powerful version: Wall of Suppression is a 9th-level spell, while Antimagic Field is just a 6th-level spell. It would be odd that the latter were more powerful by blocking everything from passing through, while the former is limited to spells of lower caster levels.
Or more examples for spells calling out that they're blocking line of effect:
However, spells and effects with the evil descriptor treat this barrier as a wall of force, which blocks line of effect.
The seamantle blocks line of effect for any fire spell or supernatural fire effect, but enemies can attempt to use fire spells within the seamantle
the ice blocks line of effect to the target
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.
Since you can't affect something in an AMF, I would rule that the line stops at the edge of the AMF.
A line being a coutinuous extent of length, it cannot be part before and part after the AMF, so no targeting on the other side.
Wall of Fire
...
Effect opaque sheet of flame up to 20 ft. long/level or a ring of fire with a radius of up to 5 ft./two levels; either form 20 ft. high
That opaque sheet of fire form along a continuous line, right? You can't break it in multiple segments.
At CL 10 it extends for 200', an AM Filed around a medium-sized creature had a diameter of 25'.What happens a creature with AM Field pass through the Wall of Fire? Only the segment where he passes is suppressed and the Wall of Fire persists outside of that area, or, as it should do based on your logic, the whole Wall would be suppressed as it is not continuous anymore?
The basic problem is if AM Field affects things outside its area or not.
We have examples of spells that do that, and those spells have specific text stating that. In the absence of the specific text, and in consideration of the fact that the spells with the specific text have a higher level, or work in a very different way, there are reasons to doubt that AM Field block line of effect to targets outside its area of effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me the case of wall of fire is clear Diego Rossi. It is not an area spell but an effect spell that occupies certain space.
As such, there is no point of origin, the wall just exists. When the AMF comes into contact, the part of the wall affected by the AMF is suppressed, while the rest of the wall still burns. Once the AMF moves or disappears, the wall resumes burning in all its length.
The spell though offers us a nice example of something not explicitly written in rules terms. And that is the created effect says "opaque sheet of flame", that is, no where in the spell it says wall of fire breaks line of sight but it says it is opaque, which implies one cannot see through, which translates to a broken line of sight in game terms.
I know nowadays, and Pathfinder 2e is a good example, the game tends to call more explicit terms. But all these classical D&D spells that made it into Pathfinder are written in a more narrative style.
Hence my doubt if an area "impervious to magic" should be considered a solid barrier when talking about magical effects and also when talking about casting magic, the line of effect game term discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please notice that Wall of Suppression has pretty much the exact same description as Antimagic Field, it's clearly meant as a more powerful version: Wall of Suppression is a 9th-level spell, while Antimagic Field is just a 6th-level spell. It would be odd that the latter...
To me this argument does not hold. The type and range of the spell are very different and those differences bring great consequences.
An AMF is an emanation centered around the caster, which basically renders the caster without his most valuable ability, his ability to cast, as well as without buffs and all (what can an archer do to that wizard without mirror image, mage armor, shield, etc.). Whereas wall of supression is an effect spell that can be placed at a medium range without barely affecting the caster herself and opening tactical possibilities well beyond AMF.
Besides, that a higher level spell does something is a weak argument when judging if a lower level one does the same thing. Specially when they were written in different times, with a great difference on how strictly they use the game terminology.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please notice that Wall of Suppression has pretty much the exact same description as Antimagic Field, it's clearly meant as a more powerful version: Wall of Suppression is a 9th-level spell, while Antimagic Field is just a 6th-level spell. It would be odd that the latter...To me this argument does not hold. The type and range of the spell are very different and those differences bring great consequences.
An AMF is an emanation centered around the caster, which basically renders the caster without his most valuable ability, his ability to cast, as well as without buffs and all (what can an archer do to that wizard without mirror image, mage armor, shield, etc.). Whereas wall of supression is an effect spell that can be placed at a medium range without barely affecting the caster herself and opening tactical possibilities well beyond AMF.
Besides, that a higher level spell does something is a weak argument when judging if a lower level one does the same thing. Specially when they were written in different times, with a great difference on how strictly they use the game terminology.
Change wizard with Ancient blue dragon and the question becomes "what do most of the party without magic and supernatural abilities against a creature that has reach, DR/magic* and fly at 350'/round"?
*It is not specified if dragon DR is EX or SU, so it is unknown if they keep their DR.
There is a comic that mentions that exact scenario, I believe.
(It’s Order of the Stick)
((That dragon is terrifying.))
|
|
Change wizard with Ancient blue dragon and the question becomes "what do most of the party without magic and supernatural abilities against a creature that has reach, DR/magic* and fly at 350'/round"?
*It is not specified if dragon DR is EX or SU, so it is unknown if they keep their DR.
DR is Su.
Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal [...]And having used this tactic several times against my players, the answer is 'die'.
Damage Reduction (Ex or Su)
You are citing the D20PFSRD that cites the CRB. As a dragon is a monster, the Bestiary is a more appropriate source. And Bestiary 2 and later sources were published after the CRB, so they supersede it.