AMF (Anti-Magic Field) question. [Archive] - Wizards Community

AMF (Anti-Magic Field) question. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Kaboth
02-22-05, 12:44 PM While looking up things and doing research I came across an anomly about AMF. I know AMF has been a huge topic of debate and arguements and this may have been brought up before but I thought I would ask here.

Under AMF it does specifically state that Dispel Magic will not work against this power. However, it does not state that Greater Dispel Magic would not work. Going on how mechanics in the game work that would seem to suggest that Greater Dispel Magic could potentially bring it down since it is not specifically mentioned. Unless they cleared this up in a FAQ or Errata, if so post a link please.
Beamup
02-22-05, 01:10 PM While looking up things and doing research I came across an anomly about AMF. I know AMF has been a huge topic of debate and arguements and this may have been brought up before but I thought I would ask here.

Under AMF it does specifically state that Dispel Magic will not work against this power. However, it does not state that Greater Dispel Magic would not work. Going on how mechanics in the game work that would seem to suggest that Greater Dispel Magic could potentially bring it down since it is not specifically mentioned. Unless they cleared this up in a FAQ or Errata, if so post a link please.
It's really fairly simple.

This spell functions like dispel magic, except that the maximum caster level on your dispel check is +20 instead of +10.

Additionally, greater dispel magic has a chance to dispel any effect that remove curse can remove, even if dispel magic can’t dispel that effect.
It's just like dispel magic except for the CL cap and the remove curse effect. Therefore, since dispel magic cannot affect an AMF, neither can greater dispel magic.
Kaboth
02-22-05, 01:16 PM It's really fairly simple.

It's just like dispel magic except for the CL cap and the remove curse effect. Therefore, since dispel magic cannot affect an AMF, neither can greater dispel magic.

But the point it states that it functions like, it does not state it is exactly like it. Its completely different spell and functionalities on how powerful it is. I mean a Honda Civic functions like a Corvette, but they have completely different limits on handling, speed, performance, etc. Even under AMF they list examples of what can still work but they do not list everything that will work.
Beamup
02-22-05, 01:29 PM It functions like dispel magic except for the stated exceptions. Period.

Let's go through this step by step.

Question #1: Does antimagic field specify whether greater dispel magic removes it?
Answer #1: No, it does not. Therefore we must look elsewhere to find out.

Question #2: Does the description of greater dispel magic specify whether it affects antimagic field?
Answer #2: No, it does not. It does state that GDM is like DM except for certain exceptions which are detailed in the description. So, we refer to DM to learn everything else about GDM.

Question #3: Does dispel magic affect an antimagic field?
Answer #3: No, it does not.

Question #4: Since GDM is stated to be just like DM except as otherwise specified, does GDM affect an AMF?
Answer #4: No, it does not. DM does not, and GDM is just like DM except as specified, and its effect on an AMF is not specified to be different.

As an analogy, let's look at polymorph, which "functions like alter self except that..." Alter self states that you do not gain supernatural attacks of the new form. Polymorph makes no mention of this rule. By your argument, this means that polymorph DOES grant the supernatural attacks of the new form because it doesn't say otherwise.

In D&D, "X functions like Y except that Z" DOES mean that X is exactly like Y except for Z. Period.
Heron_Marked_Blade
02-22-05, 01:47 PM By your argument, this means that polymorph DOES grant the supernatural attacks of the new form because it doesn't say otherwise.
Exactly. I've seen this argument in a couple of different threads, and it's an extremely wrong-headed argument. Just because Cat's Grace doesn't say you can't fly during its duration doesn't mean you can. :nonono:

[Edit: To clarify, I'm in agreement with Beamup. The argument is bad.]
Kaboth
02-22-05, 02:00 PM Exactly. I've seen this argument in a couple of different threads, and it's an extremely wrong-headed argument. Just because Cat's Grace doesn't say you can't fly during its duration doesn't mean you can. :nonono:

[Edit: To clarify, I'm in agreement with Beamup. The argument is bad.]

Oh, I completely understand the arguement of just something says it cant doesnt mean it can. However, some logic can deduce certain things anyway. Using my car example again. Honda never states that a Civic can fly but we deduce through logic it can't, but it still functions like a Corvette.

Logic states that Dispel Magic can bring down spells and spell like effects, etc. Anti-Magic Field states that Dispel Magic can not bring down an AMF, but Greater Dispel Magic while it is a similar spell in functionality, has different capabilities and limits than it's lesser counterpart as such it should be specifically listed in AMF's description.

However, the Polymorph example would almost be a valid arguement and case setting precedence, if it did not state later on in the Polymorph description that you can not gain the supernatural abilites nor extraordinary special qualities. However, it reiterattes the point that Polymorph can not gain those abilities and as such does not default to Alter Self any longer on this aspect.

[Edit- One point I would like to make, if it said in Anti-Magic Field "Dispel Magic or Greater Dispel Magic" or in Greater Dispel Magic "still can not affect Anti-Magic Field"[/i], there would be absolutely no arguement from me. I am on both sides of the arguement right now as I can see both ways. I am simply playing devil's advocate right now, AMF would not hamper nor aid any of my characters, so I have nothing to gain from this debate.]
Heron_Marked_Blade
02-22-05, 02:10 PM Using my car example again. Honda never states that a Civic can fly but we deduce through logic it can't, but it still functions like a Corvette.
In this situation, AMF is a 30'-deep, bridge-less river. Which makes the comparison valid. Your Civic does function like a Corvette, but neither of them can cross the river.
Kaboth
02-22-05, 02:12 PM In this situation, AMF is a 30'-deep, bridge-less river. Which makes the comparison valid. Your Civic does function like a Corvette, but neither of them can cross the river.

LOL, good one, but a Corvette with the appropiate speed could span a 30 foot river.
Heron_Marked_Blade
02-22-05, 02:17 PM LOL, good one, but a Corvette with the appropiate speed could span a 30 foot river.
30-feet-deep. The river is 1/4 mile wide. Not even Evil Kneivel would walk away from that one. ;)
Kaboth
02-22-05, 02:26 PM 30-feet-deep. The river is 1/4 mile wide. Not even Evil Kneivel would walk away from that one. ;)

I still think there is cause for debate on this aspect, unless can show an errata or FAQ that covers this.
Keenath
02-22-05, 02:34 PM Hey, you could still go fast enough..! If you go fast enough in any vehicle, you can achieve orbital speed.

Okay, seriously, though... Greater and Lesser versions of a spell are considered the same as the original except as specified, if they have that text. The spell is the same -- in other words, in all ways GDM operates exactly like DM, except for the ways that it differs, which are explicitly stated. Since it's stated that DM dosen't work on AMF, and GDM doesn't say otherwise, it operates the same way, and does not affect the AMF.
ceord
02-22-05, 04:13 PM here's the chain of increasing power:
dispel magic -> greater dispel magic -> mordinkainen's disjunction

antimatic field states that dispel cannot bring it down.
MDJ states that it only has a chance to bring down an antimagic field (pointing out an exception in the chain).

Greater dispel, unless otherwise specified, works like dispel.

Therefore, greater dispel cannot bring down an antimagic field.

as a side note: our group has found protection vs antimagic field (spell and spell like varieties only; still no solution for SU or EX versions): an epic spell, ward seed, that excludes the antimagic field (not that if you also exclude MDJ or dispels, they still have a chance to bring it down...but if the dispel check doesn't affect the ward then no other magic need be checked on the target).
Ascian
02-22-05, 04:42 PM I see your logic, Kaboth, but the simple fact is that it is not the brand of logic on which the third edition of the Dungeons and Dragons game is built. They have a specific way of doing things, and one facet of that way is allowing abilities only when they are stated, rather than stating that they can't be used. DM doesn't work on AMF, GDM works like DM, no provision or exception is listed in the description of GDM regarding AMF, thus GDM doesn't work on AMF.

Any further argument or rationalization attempting to reach any other conclusion is, in my opinion, a deliberate use of faulty logic in the hopes of rewriting the rules so as to get one's own way.

:twocents:

Keep the change.
Kaboth
02-22-05, 04:59 PM Well my character is a warlock, and GDM being able to bring down AMF would not work to his advantage. Besides, you have to think both ways when making a decision about rules as that it works both ways. So while someone might think its an advantage, it could come back to bite them in the arse. :rofl: I was just merely pointing out something I noticed. I agree, by deduction I would assume that GDM would not work against AMF. However, I never like to assume anything anymore.

They should errata or FAQ that about GDM and AMF though, IMO.
The Simbul
02-22-05, 07:23 PM From the D20 SRD, Special Abilities and Conditions, Antimagic:
• Wall of force, prismatic wall, and prismatic sphere are not affected by antimagic. Break enchantment, dispel magic, and greater dispel magic spells do not dispel antimagic. Mage’s disjunction has a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined.
Kaboth
02-22-05, 08:55 PM From the D20 SRD, Special Abilities and Conditions, Antimagic:

TYVM Simbul, thanks, thats what I was asking for.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kaboth 02-22-05, 12:44 PM	While looking up things and doing research I came across an anomly about AMF. I know AMF has been a huge topic of debate and arguements and this may have been brought up before but I thought I would ask here. Under AMF it does specifically state that Dispel Magic will not work against this power. However, it does not state that Greater Dispel Magic would not work. Going on how mechanics in the game work that would seem to suggest that Greater Dispel Magic could potentially bring it down since it is not specifically mentioned. Unless they cleared this up in a FAQ or Errata, if so post a link please.
Beamup 02-22-05, 01:10 PM	While looking up things and doing research I came across an anomly about AMF. I know AMF has been a huge topic of debate and arguements and this may have been brought up before but I thought I would ask here. Under AMF it does specifically state that Dispel Magic will not work against this power. However, it does not state that Greater Dispel Magic would not work. Going on how mechanics in the game work that would seem to suggest that Greater Dispel Magic could potentially bring it down since it is not specifically mentioned. Unless they cleared this up in a FAQ or Errata, if so post a link please. It's really fairly simple. This spell functions like dispel magic, except that the maximum caster level on your dispel check is +20 instead of +10. Additionally, greater dispel magic has a chance to dispel any effect that remove curse can remove, even if dispel magic can’t dispel that effect. It's just like dispel magic except for the CL cap and the remove curse effect. Therefore, since dispel magic cannot affect an AMF, neither can greater dispel magic.
Kaboth 02-22-05, 01:16 PM	It's really fairly simple. It's just like dispel magic except for the CL cap and the remove curse effect. Therefore, since dispel magic cannot affect an AMF, neither can greater dispel magic. But the point it states that it functions like, it does not state it is exactly like it. Its completely different spell and functionalities on how powerful it is. I mean a Honda Civic functions like a Corvette, but they have completely different limits on handling, speed, performance, etc. Even under AMF they list examples of what can still work but they do not list everything that will work.
Beamup 02-22-05, 01:29 PM	It functions like dispel magic except for the stated exceptions. Period. Let's go through this step by step. Question #1: Does antimagic field specify whether greater dispel magic removes it? Answer #1: No, it does not. Therefore we must look elsewhere to find out. Question #2: Does the description of greater dispel magic specify whether it affects antimagic field? Answer #2: No, it does not. It does state that GDM is like DM except for certain exceptions which are detailed in the description. So, we refer to DM to learn everything else about GDM. Question #3: Does dispel magic affect an antimagic field? Answer #3: No, it does not. Question #4: Since GDM is stated to be just like DM except as otherwise specified, does GDM affect an AMF? Answer #4: No, it does not. DM does not, and GDM is just like DM except as specified, and its effect on an AMF is not specified to be different. As an analogy, let's look at polymorph, which "functions like alter self except that..." Alter self states that you do not gain supernatural attacks of the new form. Polymorph makes no mention of this rule. By your argument, this means that polymorph DOES grant the supernatural attacks of the new form because it doesn't say otherwise. In D&D, "X functions like Y except that Z" DOES mean that X is exactly like Y except for Z. Period.
Heron_Marked_Blade 02-22-05, 01:47 PM	By your argument, this means that polymorph DOES grant the supernatural attacks of the new form because it doesn't say otherwise. Exactly. I've seen this argument in a couple of different threads, and it's an extremely wrong-headed argument. Just because Cat's Grace doesn't say you can't fly during its duration doesn't mean you can. :nonono: [Edit: To clarify, I'm in agreement with Beamup. The argument is bad.]
Kaboth 02-22-05, 02:00 PM	Exactly. I've seen this argument in a couple of different threads, and it's an extremely wrong-headed argument. Just because Cat's Grace doesn't say you can't fly during its duration doesn't mean you can. :nonono: [Edit: To clarify, I'm in agreement with Beamup. The argument is bad.] Oh, I completely understand the arguement of just something says it cant doesnt mean it can. However, some logic can deduce certain things anyway. Using my car example again. Honda never states that a Civic can fly but we deduce through logic it can't, but it still functions like a Corvette. Logic states that Dispel Magic can bring down spells and spell like effects, etc. Anti-Magic Field states that Dispel Magic can not bring down an AMF, but Greater Dispel Magic while it is a similar spell in functionality, has different capabilities and limits than it's lesser counterpart as such it should be specifically listed in AMF's description. However, the Polymorph example would almost be a valid arguement and case setting precedence, if it did not state later on in the Polymorph description that you can not gain the supernatural abilites nor extraordinary special qualities. However, it reiterattes the point that Polymorph can not gain those abilities and as such does not default to Alter Self any longer on this aspect. [Edit- One point I would like to make, if it said in Anti-Magic Field "Dispel Magic or Greater Dispel Magic" or in Greater Dispel Magic "still can not affect Anti-Magic Field"[/i], there would be absolutely no arguement from me. I am on both sides of the arguement right now as I can see both ways. I am simply playing devil's advocate right now, AMF would not hamper nor aid any of my characters, so I have nothing to gain from this debate.]
Heron_Marked_Blade 02-22-05, 02:10 PM	Using my car example again. Honda never states that a Civic can fly but we deduce through logic it can't, but it still functions like a Corvette. In this situation, AMF is a 30'-deep, bridge-less river. Which makes the comparison valid. Your Civic does function like a Corvette, but neither of them can cross the river.
Kaboth 02-22-05, 02:12 PM	In this situation, AMF is a 30'-deep, bridge-less river. Which makes the comparison valid. Your Civic does function like a Corvette, but neither of them can cross the river. LOL, good one, but a Corvette with the appropiate speed could span a 30 foot river.
Heron_Marked_Blade 02-22-05, 02:17 PM	LOL, good one, but a Corvette with the appropiate speed could span a 30 foot river. 30-feet-deep. The river is 1/4 mile wide. Not even Evil Kneivel would walk away from that one. ;)
Kaboth 02-22-05, 02:26 PM	30-feet-deep. The river is 1/4 mile wide. Not even Evil Kneivel would walk away from that one. ;) I still think there is cause for debate on this aspect, unless can show an errata or FAQ that covers this.
Keenath 02-22-05, 02:34 PM	Hey, you could still go fast enough..! If you go fast enough in any vehicle, you can achieve orbital speed. Okay, seriously, though... Greater and Lesser versions of a spell are considered the same as the original except as specified, if they have that text. The spell is the same -- in other words, in all ways GDM operates exactly like DM, except for the ways that it differs, which are explicitly stated. Since it's stated that DM dosen't work on AMF, and GDM doesn't say otherwise, it operates the same way, and does not affect the AMF.
ceord 02-22-05, 04:13 PM	here's the chain of increasing power: dispel magic -> greater dispel magic -> mordinkainen's disjunction antimatic field states that dispel cannot bring it down. MDJ states that it only has a chance to bring down an antimagic field (pointing out an exception in the chain). Greater dispel, unless otherwise specified, works like dispel. Therefore, greater dispel cannot bring down an antimagic field. as a side note: our group has found protection vs antimagic field (spell and spell like varieties only; still no solution for SU or EX versions): an epic spell, ward seed, that excludes the antimagic field (not that if you also exclude MDJ or dispels, they still have a chance to bring it down...but if the dispel check doesn't affect the ward then no other magic need be checked on the target).
Ascian 02-22-05, 04:42 PM	I see your logic, Kaboth, but the simple fact is that it is not the brand of logic on which the third edition of the Dungeons and Dragons game is built. They have a specific way of doing things, and one facet of that way is allowing abilities only when they are stated, rather than stating that they can't be used. DM doesn't work on AMF, GDM works like DM, no provision or exception is listed in the description of GDM regarding AMF, thus GDM doesn't work on AMF. Any further argument or rationalization attempting to reach any other conclusion is, in my opinion, a deliberate use of faulty logic in the hopes of rewriting the rules so as to get one's own way. :twocents: Keep the change.
Kaboth 02-22-05, 04:59 PM	Well my character is a warlock, and GDM being able to bring down AMF would not work to his advantage. Besides, you have to think both ways when making a decision about rules as that it works both ways. So while someone might think its an advantage, it could come back to bite them in the arse. :rofl: I was just merely pointing out something I noticed. I agree, by deduction I would assume that GDM would not work against AMF. However, I never like to assume anything anymore. They should errata or FAQ that about GDM and AMF though, IMO.
The Simbul 02-22-05, 07:23 PM	From the D20 SRD, Special Abilities and Conditions, Antimagic: • Wall of force, prismatic wall, and prismatic sphere are not affected by antimagic. Break enchantment, dispel magic, and greater dispel magic spells do not dispel antimagic. Mage’s disjunction has a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined.
Kaboth 02-22-05, 08:55 PM	From the D20 SRD, Special Abilities and Conditions, Antimagic: TYVM Simbul, thanks, thats what I was asking for.