Antimagic Field RAW Stupidity [Archive] - Wizards Community

Antimagic Field RAW Stupidity [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Endarire
02-13-06, 02:59 AM Antimagic field (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm) "prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines," meaning, theoretically, that as a non-extraordinary ability, AMF should not function.

-EE
X-Codes
02-13-06, 03:16 AM What's your point?

Why is this here?
Esponer
02-13-06, 05:11 AM This was clearly unintentional. I suspect the problem is actually that the name of the spell is a misnomer – the spell effect includes no field, but rather a barrier. Everything within the barrier is the "antimagic field", but the magic of the spell is the barrier itself. The spell never touches on its own magic cancelling area, and so there is no problem.

However, this doesn't matter anyway, as we're told that multiple antimagic fields have no effect on each other, which implies that the barrier of antimagic fields are immune to their own effect.

In fact, this also coincides with the interpretation that the magic of the spell is the barrier and not the emanation/field. Where two antimagic fields meet, treat it as two circles (spheres) overlapping. The circles come together and part of the "barrier" of both spells cancels (read: temporarily does not function) with the field of the other, but this has no actual effect on the overall field.

Of course, you're free to argue that the spell is called antimagic field, the area says it's an emanation, and therefore the magic is in an emanation and not a barrier which surrounds you. I'd love to make my case for the "Area" section of many spells not being as objective and rules-adhering as it should be, but I don't have the time and I don't have a strong enough case yet. It's certainly more sensible and more in keeping with the description of the spell to treat it as a barrier with no continuing magical effect within it.

…The most interesting thing, in my opinion, is the (D) on its duration. I'd say that dismissing a spell is an ability you lose while in an antimagic field, and therefore you may in fact be incapable of dismissing your field/barrier. This isn't a major issue, as nowhere does it actually say that it is an (Su) ability to dismiss a spell, but it's certainly a problem in the logic.
Endarire
02-13-06, 08:34 PM I posted this here to determine how it can be tweaked.

-EE
Vaelan
02-13-06, 09:16 PM I posted this here to determine how it can be tweaked.
I think the liberal application of common sense will suffice.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Endarire 02-13-06, 02:59 AM	Antimagic field (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm) "prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines," meaning, theoretically, that as a non-extraordinary ability, AMF should not function. -EE
X-Codes 02-13-06, 03:16 AM	What's your point? Why is this here?
Esponer 02-13-06, 05:11 AM	This was clearly unintentional. I suspect the problem is actually that the name of the spell is a misnomer – the spell effect includes no field, but rather a barrier. Everything within the barrier is the "antimagic field", but the magic of the spell is the barrier itself. The spell never touches on its own magic cancelling area, and so there is no problem. However, this doesn't matter anyway, as we're told that multiple antimagic fields have no effect on each other, which implies that the barrier of antimagic fields are immune to their own effect. In fact, this also coincides with the interpretation that the magic of the spell is the barrier and not the emanation/field. Where two antimagic fields meet, treat it as two circles (spheres) overlapping. The circles come together and part of the "barrier" of both spells cancels (read: temporarily does not function) with the field of the other, but this has no actual effect on the overall field. Of course, you're free to argue that the spell is called antimagic field, the area says it's an emanation, and therefore the magic is in an emanation and not a barrier which surrounds you. I'd love to make my case for the "Area" section of many spells not being as objective and rules-adhering as it should be, but I don't have the time and I don't have a strong enough case yet. It's certainly more sensible and more in keeping with the description of the spell to treat it as a barrier with no continuing magical effect within it. …The most interesting thing, in my opinion, is the (D) on its duration. I'd say that dismissing a spell is an ability you lose while in an antimagic field, and therefore you may in fact be incapable of dismissing your field/barrier. This isn't a major issue, as nowhere does it actually say that it is an (Su) ability to dismiss a spell, but it's certainly a problem in the logic.
Endarire 02-13-06, 08:34 PM	I posted this here to determine how it can be tweaked. -EE
Vaelan 02-13-06, 09:16 PM	I posted this here to determine how it can be tweaked. I think the liberal application of common sense will suffice.