Antimagic and Line of Effect [Archive] - Wizards Community

Antimagic and Line of Effect [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
OgreBane99
11-28-06, 11:59 AM Hey guys just a quick question...

Does Antimagic Field block line of effect? For example, if you have a wizard in the center of a room with antimagic field up, can a sorcerer on one side of the field, but not in it, shoot a lightning bolt from one end of the room where it passess through the AMF and hit the bad guys on the other? Will the lightning bolt just pass through the AMF and not be in any affect in the AMF's area? Or does the spell end at the AMF since magic can't pass through it? Can you target someone with a spell, say charm person, on an opposite side of a AMF but the target is not in the AMF?

Thanks!
tarkin
11-28-06, 12:13 PM Yes, Anti-Magic does block line of effect.
OgreBane99
11-28-06, 01:50 PM Thanks for the quick response, but can you cite and rules or where you're getting this from? I'd like to give my players something more than "Yes it blocks line of effect."
Vegepygmy
11-28-06, 01:56 PM It's in the 3.0 FAQ:
Does an antimagic field suppress a spell effect at the point of origin or the area of effect? For instance, if I cast silence on myself and then cast antimagic field (assuming I have the Silent Spell feat), would the entire silence spell be suppressed (because it’s centered on me), or just the 10-foot radius surrounding me, leaving a 5-foot ring of silence around the outside of the antimagic field?
It depends on the spell. Silence is an emanation, so the whole effect is suppressed if the point from which the effect emanates is inside the antimagic field. With an area spell, only the part of the area that is within the antimagic field is suppressed. Note that the antimagic field blocks line of effect, so an area cannot extend through the antimagic field. For example, if you brought the antimagic field into a fog cloud effect, only the portion of the fog cloud that is within the antimagic field would be suppressed. On the other hand, if you cast antimagic field in a corridor 10 feet wide, the fog cloud effect could not spread past the antimagic field. Note that a spread effect will flow around an antimagic field if it has space to do so, just as it would spread around any other barrier.
tarkin
11-28-06, 02:02 PM Also note that certain effects with SR: No can affect things inside an anti-magic sphere.

The main ones is instanteous conjurations (SR: No) which are throw into it. They do not need line of effect to the target, just to the point where they are summoned.

Also, spells like earthquake, can be centered outside of the Anti-Magic, but still effect what's in the area (as the ground inside the area is still non-magically attached to the ground outside, which is moved by the spell)

Finally, you can also spreads and indirect attacks, to attack creatures on the other side of an anti-magic zone, as long as a 'path' exists to get to them, even if it requires turning a corner.

Prime example there is to cast Flame Strike. It is a vertical strike that goes downward 40 ft. So you only need Line of Effect to a point less than 40ft above the victim, you don't need line of effect to the victim themself.
OgreBane99
11-28-06, 02:12 PM Perfect. Thanks!!!
Lafing Cat
11-28-06, 03:36 PM Prime example there is to cast Flame Strike. It is a vertical strike that goes downward 40 ft. So you only need Line of Effect to a point less than 40ft above the victim, you don't need line of effect to the victim themself.

You also need the victim to not be within the area of the Anti-Magic Field itself. Not saying that you thought otherwise, just that the wording of your answer it somewhat misleading.
OgreBane99
12-01-06, 02:29 PM Okay just one more thing I've having some difficulty understanding....

Do you need to have "Line of Effect" in order to cast a spell at someone?

For this example, I don't mean any touch attack, ray or area affect spells, just specific "Target" spells, such as hold person or charm person.

So, a normal wall blocks line of effect... so you couldn't target someone with a spell that was behind a wall, even if you knew they were there, right? This could also apply to a AMF. Could you target someone with a "target" spell (like those two examples above) if the "Line of Effect" went through the AMF? What if you were flying above the AMF on the ground? Could you target them if the "Line of Effect" didn't go through the AMF area?

Or do I have this whole "line of effect" thing screwed up?
Keterys
12-01-06, 02:57 PM That's right - you need line of effect to cast the hold person or whatever.

The main ones is instanteous conjurations (SR: No) which are throw into it. They do not need line of effect to the target, just to the point where they are summoned.

Is this in the FAQ or something? Otherwise, ruling that, say, a lesser orb can be cast into it is not necessarily RAW. (For example, the spells do not leave behind anything or grenade scatter past someone if they miss, etc... they dissipate in some manner. So, they might simply do that on approaching the AMF as the magic holding them into an orb shape dissipates)

Either way, no line of effect, which you need in order to cast the spell. An instantaneous spell like a 'wall' pushed into an AMF, tho... sure.
Nezkrul
12-01-06, 07:46 PM Keterys and Ogrebane: all of your questions can be answered if you would simply read your PhB's, seriously. Look up spells in the PhB and spellcasting and you will see that you need line of effect to cast spells on targets. Look up AMF and read all of its description and you will see that it has no effect on instantaneous conjurations since the magic that brought them to this plane has come and gone.

A lot of people that ask questions don't seem to rtm much. (rtm = read the manual)
redraven
12-01-06, 08:07 PM The Orb spells represent a heated debate in regards to Line of Effect and how "magical" they are between your palm and the intended target. Regardless of assertions to the contrary, the jury is still out on that one. For while they are Conjurations with an Instantaneous duration, it is not at all clear that they were intended to be grouped with Instantaneous Conjurations such as Create Water and Wall of Iron, all of which remain in effect forever. Arguing that the Orb spells bypass an AMF (e.g. shoot through) means accepting two things:

The Orb spells defeat Globes of Invulnerability, since the Orbs are not considered magical effects (otherwise an AMF would have suppressed them).
The Orbs stick around indefinitely, so Orbs of Force can be used as Christmas decorations or lobbed at enemies at a future date.

With as much fervor as the Orb spells generate, I am surprised this has not been addressed in an FAQ, RotG, or errata of some sort by now.
OgreBane99
12-01-06, 08:16 PM Keterys and Ogrebane: all of your questions can be answered if you would simply read your PhB's, seriously. Look up spells in the PhB and spellcasting and you will see that you need line of effect to cast spells on targets. Look up AMF and read all of its description and you will see that it has no effect on instantaneous conjurations since the magic that brought them to this plane has come and gone.

A lot of people that ask questions don't seem to rtm much. (rtm = read the manual)

Well perhaps you should follow your own advice and "rtm" too...or at the very least, my posts before you begin lecturing me. I never asked anything about conjurations going through AMF. My question, as you can see a couple posts above, addressed spells that affected a "target" and didn't require touch attacks, rays or area affects spells. And it also turns out they weren't conjuration spells. Trust me, I read through every glossary, FAQ, SRD, errata and book I have (which is about all of 'em), and my question was not covered until I brought it up here at these very helpful boards.

So my advice/lecture? Read the entire posts before you lecture someone, seriously. A lot of people that answer questions don't seem to rtp much. (rtp = read the post).

And a big thank you to everyone else, you guys were a great help! :D
OgreBane99
12-01-06, 08:17 PM The Orb spells represent a heated debate in regards to Line of Effect and how "magical" they are between your palm and the intended target. Regardless of assertions to the contrary, the jury is still out on that one. For while they are Conjurations with an Instantaneous duration, it is not at all clear that they were intended to be grouped with Instantaneous Conjurations such as Create Water and Wall of Iron, all of which remain in effect forever. Arguing that the Orb spells bypass an AMF (e.g. shoot through) means accepting two things:

The Orb spells defeat Globes of Invulnerability, since the Orbs are not considered magical effects (otherwise an AMF would have suppressed them).
The Orbs stick around indefinitely, so Orbs of Force can be used as Christmas decorations or lobbed at enemies at a future date.

With as much fervor as the Orb spells generate, I am surprised this has not been addressed in an FAQ, RotG, or errata of some sort by now.
Ya... I'm going no on this. Orb spells won't go through any AMF in my game. I can just see the warmage now, standing behind his bard/sublime chord with AMF up, laughing at my dragon.... :weep:
Nezkrul
12-01-06, 08:36 PM Ya... I'm going no on this. Orb spells won't go through any AMF in my game. I can just see the warmage now, standing behind his bard/sublime chord with AMF up, laughing at my dragon.... :weep:

you do know said warmage can't cast said orb spells while in the amf right? But feel free to houserule as you see fit without playtesting, by all means.

Oh and maybe you should read my post (the Keterys and Ogrebane part at least) and realize that part of the post was for you and part was for Keterys, so who needs to rtp?
Nezkrul
12-01-06, 08:42 PM The Orb spells represent a heated debate in regards to Line of Effect and how "magical" they are between your palm and the intended target. Regardless of assertions to the contrary, the jury is still out on that one. For while they are Conjurations with an Instantaneous duration, it is not at all clear that they were intended to be grouped with Instantaneous Conjurations such as Create Water and Wall of Iron, all of which remain in effect forever. Arguing that the Orb spells bypass an AMF (e.g. shoot through) means accepting two things:
The Orb spells defeat Globes of Invulnerability, since the Orbs are not considered magical effects (otherwise an AMF would have suppressed them).
The Orbs stick around indefinitely, so Orbs of Force can be used as Christmas decorations or lobbed at enemies at a future date.
With as much fervor as the Orb spells generate, I am surprised this has not been addressed in an FAQ, RotG, or errata of some sort by now.

Orb spells pass through AMF because:

AMF says it does not affect instantaneous duration conjurations, and the orb spells are such; and nothing else needs to be accepted beyond this. It also has not been addressed in the FAQ or RotG because of this very simple easy to understand rule that doesn't need to be over thought. When you start over thinking like this instead of just taking the rules for what they are you get lots of confusion.
redraven
12-01-06, 09:55 PM Orb spells pass through AMF because:

AMF says it does not affect instantaneous duration conjurations, and the orb spells are such; and nothing else needs to be accepted beyond this. It also has not been addressed in the FAQ or RotG because of this very simple easy to understand rule that doesn't need to be over thought. When you start over thinking like this instead of just taking the rules for what they are you get lots of confusion.
Yes, you said as much in the other AMF thread too. Except you also said Orbs are stopped by Globe of Invulnerability because the spell "said so." Unfortunately, the spell says it stops magical effects. So either the Orbs are magical or they are not. If the former, AMF and GoI stop them. If the latter, nothing does.

In any case, your continued suggestions to "stop over-thinking" are a waste of time. This debate is much like the "Darkness creates shadowy illumination" debate - they exist because they are more than simply a rules issue, they are also an issue with the game mechanics and theory. There is an internal logic in the system, and Orbs of (nonmagical) Force bypassing an AMF is something that clearly is going against it.
Keterys
12-02-06, 12:16 AM I am aware that instantaneous conjurations continue to exist in an AMF - as I noted, that does not answer the question as to whether you can cast them into an AMF at all, or whether it blocks line of effect as the FAQ says.

Ie,
'An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area' applies, just as much as the rule for instantaneous conjurations not being dispelled by the field like summoned and incorporeal creatures.

You aren't creating a ball of lava and throwing it, somehow. Magic is propelling the effect, and it is not a solid mass of anything. It dissipates (spreads out, falls apart, etc) on attack, and the attack has no range increment and does not exist past the range of the spell. Ie, it's magic... until after you cast it, at which point it's no longer a solid guided orb.

Which means there is an argument for either side.

But read the manual, as you say.
OgreBane99
12-02-06, 01:11 AM you do know said warmage can't cast said orb spells while in the amf right? But feel free to houserule as you see fit without playtesting, by all means.

Oh and maybe you should read my post (the Keterys and Ogrebane part at least) and realize that part of the post was for you and part was for Keterys, so who needs to rtp?
Are you a broken record? You never split the parts up... you included us both. And you didn't answer the question I brought up, just the instantaneous conjuration spells. Are you purposely trying to aggrivate me? Because, unfortunately, it's working.

you do know said warmage can't cast said orb spells while in the amf right? But feel free to houserule as you see fit without playtesting, by all means.
No, I didn't say that. I said: "Ya... I'm going no on this. Orb spells won't go through any AMF in my game."... Pay special attention to the bolded part. I said it won't pass through an AMF, not that the warmage actually cast it while in the AMF.
Keterys
12-02-06, 10:08 AM As an aside, I don't believe you can cast 'Create Water' to create water into the antimagic field. Water created could be moved into the field, but the spellcasting effect itself won't manifest inside the field.

Which would be a strike against the orbs. So, rule as you like, I'm sure they'll FAQ it... some day.
Part-Human2
12-02-06, 10:52 AM ...When you start over thinking like this instead of just taking the rules for what they are you get lots of confusion.

This is an interesting thread but I wanted to point out that the rules are tool for consistancy, fairness and balance. Rule 0 is in the books so I disagree with the above quoted statement. I think WoTC left a lot of room for interpretation of the rules (unintentially) and the players and DMs must decide what's right for their own campaigns.
TheCobra
12-02-06, 11:24 AM The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.

The wording isn't really clear.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
OgreBane99 11-28-06, 11:59 AM	Hey guys just a quick question... Does Antimagic Field block line of effect? For example, if you have a wizard in the center of a room with antimagic field up, can a sorcerer on one side of the field, but not in it, shoot a lightning bolt from one end of the room where it passess through the AMF and hit the bad guys on the other? Will the lightning bolt just pass through the AMF and not be in any affect in the AMF's area? Or does the spell end at the AMF since magic can't pass through it? Can you target someone with a spell, say charm person, on an opposite side of a AMF but the target is not in the AMF? Thanks!
tarkin 11-28-06, 12:13 PM	Yes, Anti-Magic does block line of effect.
OgreBane99 11-28-06, 01:50 PM	Thanks for the quick response, but can you cite and rules or where you're getting this from? I'd like to give my players something more than "Yes it blocks line of effect."
Vegepygmy 11-28-06, 01:56 PM	It's in the 3.0 FAQ: Does an antimagic field suppress a spell effect at the point of origin or the area of effect? For instance, if I cast silence on myself and then cast antimagic field (assuming I have the Silent Spell feat), would the entire silence spell be suppressed (because it’s centered on me), or just the 10-foot radius surrounding me, leaving a 5-foot ring of silence around the outside of the antimagic field? It depends on the spell. Silence is an emanation, so the whole effect is suppressed if the point from which the effect emanates is inside the antimagic field. With an area spell, only the part of the area that is within the antimagic field is suppressed. Note that the antimagic field blocks line of effect, so an area cannot extend through the antimagic field. For example, if you brought the antimagic field into a fog cloud effect, only the portion of the fog cloud that is within the antimagic field would be suppressed. On the other hand, if you cast antimagic field in a corridor 10 feet wide, the fog cloud effect could not spread past the antimagic field. Note that a spread effect will flow around an antimagic field if it has space to do so, just as it would spread around any other barrier.
tarkin 11-28-06, 02:02 PM	Also note that certain effects with SR: No can affect things inside an anti-magic sphere. The main ones is instanteous conjurations (SR: No) which are throw into it. They do not need line of effect to the target, just to the point where they are summoned. Also, spells like earthquake, can be centered outside of the Anti-Magic, but still effect what's in the area (as the ground inside the area is still non-magically attached to the ground outside, which is moved by the spell) Finally, you can also spreads and indirect attacks, to attack creatures on the other side of an anti-magic zone, as long as a 'path' exists to get to them, even if it requires turning a corner. Prime example there is to cast Flame Strike. It is a vertical strike that goes downward 40 ft. So you only need Line of Effect to a point less than 40ft above the victim, you don't need line of effect to the victim themself.
OgreBane99 11-28-06, 02:12 PM	Perfect. Thanks!!!
Lafing Cat 11-28-06, 03:36 PM	Prime example there is to cast Flame Strike. It is a vertical strike that goes downward 40 ft. So you only need Line of Effect to a point less than 40ft above the victim, you don't need line of effect to the victim themself. You also need the victim to not be within the area of the Anti-Magic Field itself. Not saying that you thought otherwise, just that the wording of your answer it somewhat misleading.
OgreBane99 12-01-06, 02:29 PM	Okay just one more thing I've having some difficulty understanding.... Do you need to have "Line of Effect" in order to cast a spell at someone? For this example, I don't mean any touch attack, ray or area affect spells, just specific "Target" spells, such as hold person or charm person. So, a normal wall blocks line of effect... so you couldn't target someone with a spell that was behind a wall, even if you knew they were there, right? This could also apply to a AMF. Could you target someone with a "target" spell (like those two examples above) if the "Line of Effect" went through the AMF? What if you were flying above the AMF on the ground? Could you target them if the "Line of Effect" didn't go through the AMF area? Or do I have this whole "line of effect" thing screwed up?
Keterys 12-01-06, 02:57 PM	That's right - you need line of effect to cast the hold person or whatever. The main ones is instanteous conjurations (SR: No) which are throw into it. They do not need line of effect to the target, just to the point where they are summoned. Is this in the FAQ or something? Otherwise, ruling that, say, a lesser orb can be cast into it is not necessarily RAW. (For example, the spells do not leave behind anything or grenade scatter past someone if they miss, etc... they dissipate in some manner. So, they might simply do that on approaching the AMF as the magic holding them into an orb shape dissipates) Either way, no line of effect, which you need in order to cast the spell. An instantaneous spell like a 'wall' pushed into an AMF, tho... sure.
Nezkrul 12-01-06, 07:46 PM	Keterys and Ogrebane: all of your questions can be answered if you would simply read your PhB's, seriously. Look up spells in the PhB and spellcasting and you will see that you need line of effect to cast spells on targets. Look up AMF and read all of its description and you will see that it has no effect on instantaneous conjurations since the magic that brought them to this plane has come and gone. A lot of people that ask questions don't seem to rtm much. (rtm = read the manual)
redraven 12-01-06, 08:07 PM	The Orb spells represent a heated debate in regards to Line of Effect and how "magical" they are between your palm and the intended target. Regardless of assertions to the contrary, the jury is still out on that one. For while they are Conjurations with an Instantaneous duration, it is not at all clear that they were intended to be grouped with Instantaneous Conjurations such as Create Water and Wall of Iron, all of which remain in effect forever. Arguing that the Orb spells bypass an AMF (e.g. shoot through) means accepting two things: The Orb spells defeat Globes of Invulnerability, since the Orbs are not considered magical effects (otherwise an AMF would have suppressed them). The Orbs stick around indefinitely, so Orbs of Force can be used as Christmas decorations or lobbed at enemies at a future date. With as much fervor as the Orb spells generate, I am surprised this has not been addressed in an FAQ, RotG, or errata of some sort by now.
OgreBane99 12-01-06, 08:16 PM	Keterys and Ogrebane: all of your questions can be answered if you would simply read your PhB's, seriously. Look up spells in the PhB and spellcasting and you will see that you need line of effect to cast spells on targets. Look up AMF and read all of its description and you will see that it has no effect on instantaneous conjurations since the magic that brought them to this plane has come and gone. A lot of people that ask questions don't seem to rtm much. (rtm = read the manual) Well perhaps you should follow your own advice and "rtm" too...or at the very least, my posts before you begin lecturing me. I never asked anything about conjurations going through AMF. My question, as you can see a couple posts above, addressed spells that affected a "target" and didn't require touch attacks, rays or area affects spells. And it also turns out they weren't conjuration spells. Trust me, I read through every glossary, FAQ, SRD, errata and book I have (which is about all of 'em), and my question was not covered until I brought it up here at these very helpful boards. So my advice/lecture? Read the entire posts before you lecture someone, seriously. A lot of people that answer questions don't seem to rtp much. (rtp = read the post). And a big thank you to everyone else, you guys were a great help! :D
OgreBane99 12-01-06, 08:17 PM	The Orb spells represent a heated debate in regards to Line of Effect and how "magical" they are between your palm and the intended target. Regardless of assertions to the contrary, the jury is still out on that one. For while they are Conjurations with an Instantaneous duration, it is not at all clear that they were intended to be grouped with Instantaneous Conjurations such as Create Water and Wall of Iron, all of which remain in effect forever. Arguing that the Orb spells bypass an AMF (e.g. shoot through) means accepting two things: The Orb spells defeat Globes of Invulnerability, since the Orbs are not considered magical effects (otherwise an AMF would have suppressed them). The Orbs stick around indefinitely, so Orbs of Force can be used as Christmas decorations or lobbed at enemies at a future date. With as much fervor as the Orb spells generate, I am surprised this has not been addressed in an FAQ, RotG, or errata of some sort by now. Ya... I'm going no on this. Orb spells won't go through any AMF in my game. I can just see the warmage now, standing behind his bard/sublime chord with AMF up, laughing at my dragon.... :weep:
Nezkrul 12-01-06, 08:36 PM	Ya... I'm going no on this. Orb spells won't go through any AMF in my game. I can just see the warmage now, standing behind his bard/sublime chord with AMF up, laughing at my dragon.... :weep: you do know said warmage can't cast said orb spells while in the amf right? But feel free to houserule as you see fit without playtesting, by all means. Oh and maybe you should read my post (the Keterys and Ogrebane part at least) and realize that part of the post was for you and part was for Keterys, so who needs to rtp?
Nezkrul 12-01-06, 08:42 PM	The Orb spells represent a heated debate in regards to Line of Effect and how "magical" they are between your palm and the intended target. Regardless of assertions to the contrary, the jury is still out on that one. For while they are Conjurations with an Instantaneous duration, it is not at all clear that they were intended to be grouped with Instantaneous Conjurations such as Create Water and Wall of Iron, all of which remain in effect forever. Arguing that the Orb spells bypass an AMF (e.g. shoot through) means accepting two things: The Orb spells defeat Globes of Invulnerability, since the Orbs are not considered magical effects (otherwise an AMF would have suppressed them). The Orbs stick around indefinitely, so Orbs of Force can be used as Christmas decorations or lobbed at enemies at a future date. With as much fervor as the Orb spells generate, I am surprised this has not been addressed in an FAQ, RotG, or errata of some sort by now. Orb spells pass through AMF because: AMF says it does not affect instantaneous duration conjurations, and the orb spells are such; and nothing else needs to be accepted beyond this. It also has not been addressed in the FAQ or RotG because of this very simple easy to understand rule that doesn't need to be over thought. When you start over thinking like this instead of just taking the rules for what they are you get lots of confusion.
redraven 12-01-06, 09:55 PM	Orb spells pass through AMF because: AMF says it does not affect instantaneous duration conjurations, and the orb spells are such; and nothing else needs to be accepted beyond this. It also has not been addressed in the FAQ or RotG because of this very simple easy to understand rule that doesn't need to be over thought. When you start over thinking like this instead of just taking the rules for what they are you get lots of confusion. Yes, you said as much in the other AMF thread too. Except you also said Orbs are stopped by Globe of Invulnerability because the spell "said so." Unfortunately, the spell says it stops magical effects. So either the Orbs are magical or they are not. If the former, AMF and GoI stop them. If the latter, nothing does. In any case, your continued suggestions to "stop over-thinking" are a waste of time. This debate is much like the "Darkness creates shadowy illumination" debate - they exist because they are more than simply a rules issue, they are also an issue with the game mechanics and theory. There is an internal logic in the system, and Orbs of (nonmagical) Force bypassing an AMF is something that clearly is going against it.
Keterys 12-02-06, 12:16 AM	I am aware that instantaneous conjurations continue to exist in an AMF - as I noted, that does not answer the question as to whether you can cast them into an AMF at all, or whether it blocks line of effect as the FAQ says. Ie, 'An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area' applies, just as much as the rule for instantaneous conjurations not being dispelled by the field like summoned and incorporeal creatures. You aren't creating a ball of lava and throwing it, somehow. Magic is propelling the effect, and it is not a solid mass of anything. It dissipates (spreads out, falls apart, etc) on attack, and the attack has no range increment and does not exist past the range of the spell. Ie, it's magic... until after you cast it, at which point it's no longer a solid guided orb. Which means there is an argument for either side. But read the manual, as you say.
OgreBane99 12-02-06, 01:11 AM	you do know said warmage can't cast said orb spells while in the amf right? But feel free to houserule as you see fit without playtesting, by all means. Oh and maybe you should read my post (the Keterys and Ogrebane part at least) and realize that part of the post was for you and part was for Keterys, so who needs to rtp? Are you a broken record? You never split the parts up... you included us both. And you didn't answer the question I brought up, just the instantaneous conjuration spells. Are you purposely trying to aggrivate me? Because, unfortunately, it's working. you do know said warmage can't cast said orb spells while in the amf right? But feel free to houserule as you see fit without playtesting, by all means. No, I didn't say that. I said: "Ya... I'm going no on this. Orb spells won't go through any AMF in my game."... Pay special attention to the bolded part. I said it won't pass through an AMF, not that the warmage actually cast it while in the AMF.
Keterys 12-02-06, 10:08 AM	As an aside, I don't believe you can cast 'Create Water' to create water into the antimagic field. Water created could be moved into the field, but the spellcasting effect itself won't manifest inside the field. Which would be a strike against the orbs. So, rule as you like, I'm sure they'll FAQ it... some day.
Part-Human2 12-02-06, 10:52 AM	...When you start over thinking like this instead of just taking the rules for what they are you get lots of confusion. This is an interesting thread but I wanted to point out that the rules are tool for consistancy, fairness and balance. Rule 0 is in the books so I disagree with the above quoted statement. I think WoTC left a lot of room for interpretation of the rules (unintentially) and the players and DMs must decide what's right for their own campaigns.
TheCobra 12-02-06, 11:24 AM	The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result. The wording isn't really clear.