Antimagic Immune, does this WORK? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Antimagic Immune, does this WORK? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
SpoonyBard
04-21-07, 01:01 PM Wizard: Antimagic Field+Sculpt Spell into a cone. Activate Spellguard ring with Fighter.

Fighter: **proceeds to beat on everyone INSIDE the antimagic cone while immune to antimagic himself**

So yeah... Does this WORK? Take a look at the spellguard ring in Complete Mage (page 127), as well as spell used to create it (pg 112) and, well...

My players pulled this, and as awesome as it seems, I feel like there's something inherently wrong with it...Partially due to rulings questions. (If the fighter attacks with his Frost Axe, does it do frost damage? He's immune to antimagic but his target isn't. Can the fighter be targeted?)

My brain hurts.
CantripN
04-21-07, 01:23 PM Sure, it works. But it's one of the reasons I don't use much of the stuff in Complete Mage...
Dragonteuthis
04-21-07, 02:12 PM Personally, I would read immune as "Has unbeatable spell resistance in regard to the attuned caster."

If you don't read it that way, you end up with hilarious possibilities like a ring-wearer walking through walls of force even though the caster can't, walking on the water if the spellcaster turns a sheet of stone into water with polymorph any object, and other silly scenarios.

Note how the golem's spell immunity description changed from 3.0 to 3.5; there's a reason they did that.
temparus2000
04-21-07, 02:21 PM I would just say that the fighter may be immune, but the ring isn't It therefore gets "turned-off" by an anti-magic field, subjecting the fighter to it.
kjenks
04-21-07, 02:30 PM Yes, it kind of works, but the Range entry of the spell description limits the effects to 10 ft, even if you change the area. So you have a pretty short cone.

SRD
===
Antimagic Field
Abjuration
Level: Clr 8, Magic 6, Protection 6, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 10 ft.
Area: 10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you
===

And there's this rule:

SRD
===
RANGE
A spell’s range indicates how far from you it can reach, as defined in the Range entry of the spell description. A spell’s range is the maximum distance from you that the spell’s effect can occur, as well as the maximum distance at which you can designate the spell’s point of origin. If any portion of the spell’s area would extend beyond this range, that area is wasted.
===
NobodyRemembersThis
04-21-07, 02:43 PM Also this from the SRD:Spell Immunity

A creature with spell immunity avoids the effects of spells and spell-like abilities that directly affect it. This works exactly like spell resistance, except that it cannot be overcome. Sometimes spell immunity is conditional or applies to only spells of a certain kind or level. Spells that do not allow spell resistance are not affected by spell immunity. Emphasis mine. It is important because the only time Anti-Magic Field observes SR is for summoned creatures. As far as I can tell, in all other instances it is SR: NO.

That means spell immunity (ie, the ring) does not protect against the Anti-Magic Field. So your fighter is still hosed. Additionally Creatures/weapons with magical effects would still strike his square with their magical abilities since the square the fighter is in is not affected by the AM field. After all, Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field.
SpoonyBard
04-21-07, 02:55 PM To quote the mage in question...

"they all seem to think the ring is based off of the spell immunity spell. may want to point out it's not. also, note that the spell immunity spell specifically calls out that it does not workon "SR: No" spells, while the ring description does not
"also point out to the last guy, while the Extraordinary Spell Aim feat specifies it works on a square (or squares) the creature is in, spellguard rings work on the creature itself, leaving the area the creature is standing in unaffected"

Comments?
NobodyRemembersThis
04-21-07, 03:19 PM I was quoting the rules for spell immunity, not the actuall spell itself. ;) His interpretation is still invalid.
Bopple
04-21-07, 11:10 PM What exactly temparus and kjenks said.
SpoonyBard
04-22-07, 12:53 AM I was quoting the rules for spell immunity, not the actuall spell itself. ;) His interpretation is still invalid.

But the ring never mentions "Spell immunity." It says you're immune to a spell. Sorta like how Change Shape and Shapechange are not the same thing.
SephDragoon
04-22-07, 01:26 AM Wow... you know, you should really have just said the moment they tried it, "NO!" I wouldn't care if it was legal or not at that point. I reward players who think, but only when they think within character. Something like this is a question of rules, and therefore, gets no reward. If a player manages to lead a dragon into a trap of stalagmite from the ceiling, I'll allow it regardless of the rules involved, they used their heads and wits and played against my wits. If a player tries a debate on rules like what you are describing though, I tend to get very angry.

This is like saying that a 1 foot tall pixie could manage to trip a rogue on a 5 foot ledge into falling off. Nope, nuh uh... Ain't gonna happen, even if the rules say it is possible, pixie ain't doing it. This came up, and I said no right there. The player insisted it would work and refused to play until i looked it up.

When a player starts this, it becomes a problem. The DM has final call, make sure your players understand that. The reason the DM has final call is because you could go on for hours about rules debates.
SpoonyBard
04-22-07, 02:54 AM When a player starts this, it becomes a problem. The DM has final call, make sure your players understand that. The reason the DM has final call is because you could go on for hours about rules debates.

My players know that I, as the DM, have the final call.

They ALSO know that I am a by-the-book DM, and I play by the rules as tightly as possible.

And why SHOULD I have said no the moment they tried this? The mage did something to make the fighter immune to his magic, then dropped antimagic on the area. I don't see why there was no reason for them to come up with this idea in character.
temparus2000
04-22-07, 02:58 AM Wow... you know, you should really have just said the moment they tried it, "NO!" I wouldn't care if it was legal or not at that point. I reward players who think, but only when they think within character. Something like this is a question of rules, and therefore, gets no reward. If a player manages to lead a dragon into a trap of stalagmite from the ceiling, I'll allow it regardless of the rules involved, they used their heads and wits and played against my wits. If a player tries a debate on rules like what you are describing though, I tend to get very angry.

This is like saying that a 1 foot tall pixie could manage to trip a rogue on a 5 foot ledge into falling off. Nope, nuh uh... Ain't gonna happen, even if the rules say it is possible, pixie ain't doing it. This came up, and I said no right there. The player insisted it would work and refused to play until i looked it up.

When a player starts this, it becomes a problem. The DM has final call, make sure your players understand that. The reason the DM has final call is because you could go on for hours about rules debates.

my point exactly. If you're asking "do the rules technically allow for this?" then the answer is yes. But there are a legion of things that are broken but technically allowed. That's what DM's are for. If you don't care for my earlier response of "the ring is still affected", then casually remind the players that if this tactic works for them it will also work for enemy NPC's. And in that regard the players are infinitely out-numbered.
SephDragoon
04-22-07, 10:08 AM And why SHOULD I have said no the moment they tried this? The mage did something to make the fighter immune to his magic, then dropped antimagic on the area. I don't see why there was no reason for them to come up with this idea in character.

Because, the game becomes no fun at this point. Your job as a DM is to keep the game fun. We had a problem with our characters being way too overpowered for the enemies we faced, and they were the proper CR too. The problem was, we kept killing them too quick, to the point that our newest player could not even manage to ATTACK the enemy the entire first session they were with us.

This became a problem of fun for the player, and also for us, because battles ended just so anti-climactically (though it became a little hillarious with the irony). My DM did something about it that we all agreed to, because it was for the good of the game. A DM puts his foot down for the good of the game. Trust me, if you allow your players to do something like that unchecked, they will start to get bored quickly. The game is no fun with godmode on.
FlimFlam
04-22-07, 11:34 AM Because, the game becomes no fun at this point.

So you're the one who decides what is and is not fun for each gaming group? We should all play by your rules then, otherwise we won't have any fun? :rolleyes:
SpoonyBard
04-22-07, 12:15 PM Trust me, if you allow your players to do something like that unchecked, they will start to get bored quickly. The game is no fun with godmode on.

You... clearly don't know my players.

The mage in question has a dozen combos he uses when he honestly thinks his character could die... And other than that, he tries to use varied spells as possible. He likes to figure out how things work, and IF things work, and my party has a LOT of fun finding new and interesting ways to have items and spells and abilities interact. My party does what they think is coolest, even if something else would be more effective (unless they're seriously at risk of death or something like that).

So yeah, he can still have fun without thinking his character's likely to die...

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SpoonyBard 04-21-07, 01:01 PM	Wizard: Antimagic Field+Sculpt Spell into a cone. Activate Spellguard ring with Fighter. Fighter: proceeds to beat on everyone INSIDE the antimagic cone while immune to antimagic himself So yeah... Does this WORK? Take a look at the spellguard ring in Complete Mage (page 127), as well as spell used to create it (pg 112) and, well... My players pulled this, and as awesome as it seems, I feel like there's something inherently wrong with it...Partially due to rulings questions. (If the fighter attacks with his Frost Axe, does it do frost damage? He's immune to antimagic but his target isn't. Can the fighter be targeted?) My brain hurts.
CantripN 04-21-07, 01:23 PM	Sure, it works. But it's one of the reasons I don't use much of the stuff in Complete Mage...
Dragonteuthis 04-21-07, 02:12 PM	Personally, I would read immune as "Has unbeatable spell resistance in regard to the attuned caster." If you don't read it that way, you end up with hilarious possibilities like a ring-wearer walking through walls of force even though the caster can't, walking on the water if the spellcaster turns a sheet of stone into water with polymorph any object, and other silly scenarios. Note how the golem's spell immunity description changed from 3.0 to 3.5; there's a reason they did that.
temparus2000 04-21-07, 02:21 PM	I would just say that the fighter may be immune, but the ring isn't It therefore gets "turned-off" by an anti-magic field, subjecting the fighter to it.
kjenks 04-21-07, 02:30 PM	Yes, it kind of works, but the Range entry of the spell description limits the effects to 10 ft, even if you change the area. So you have a pretty short cone. SRD === Antimagic Field Abjuration Level: Clr 8, Magic 6, Protection 6, Sor/Wiz 6 Components: V, S, M/DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 10 ft. Area: 10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you === And there's this rule: SRD === RANGE A spell’s range indicates how far from you it can reach, as defined in the Range entry of the spell description. A spell’s range is the maximum distance from you that the spell’s effect can occur, as well as the maximum distance at which you can designate the spell’s point of origin. If any portion of the spell’s area would extend beyond this range, that area is wasted. ===
NobodyRemembersThis 04-21-07, 02:43 PM	Also this from the SRD:Spell Immunity A creature with spell immunity avoids the effects of spells and spell-like abilities that directly affect it. This works exactly like spell resistance, except that it cannot be overcome. Sometimes spell immunity is conditional or applies to only spells of a certain kind or level. Spells that do not allow spell resistance are not affected by spell immunity. Emphasis mine. It is important because the only time Anti-Magic Field observes SR is for summoned creatures. As far as I can tell, in all other instances it is SR: NO. That means spell immunity (ie, the ring) does not protect against the Anti-Magic Field. So your fighter is still hosed. Additionally Creatures/weapons with magical effects would still strike his square with their magical abilities since the square the fighter is in is not affected by the AM field. After all, Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field.
SpoonyBard 04-21-07, 02:55 PM	To quote the mage in question... "they all seem to think the ring is based off of the spell immunity spell. may want to point out it's not. also, note that the spell immunity spell specifically calls out that it does not workon "SR: No" spells, while the ring description does not "also point out to the last guy, while the Extraordinary Spell Aim feat specifies it works on a square (or squares) the creature is in, spellguard rings work on the creature itself, leaving the area the creature is standing in unaffected" Comments?
NobodyRemembersThis 04-21-07, 03:19 PM	I was quoting the rules for spell immunity, not the actuall spell itself. ;) His interpretation is still invalid.
Bopple 04-21-07, 11:10 PM	What exactly temparus and kjenks said.
SpoonyBard 04-22-07, 12:53 AM	I was quoting the rules for spell immunity, not the actuall spell itself. ;) His interpretation is still invalid. But the ring never mentions "Spell immunity." It says you're immune to a spell. Sorta like how Change Shape and Shapechange are not the same thing.
SephDragoon 04-22-07, 01:26 AM	Wow... you know, you should really have just said the moment they tried it, "NO!" I wouldn't care if it was legal or not at that point. I reward players who think, but only when they think within character. Something like this is a question of rules, and therefore, gets no reward. If a player manages to lead a dragon into a trap of stalagmite from the ceiling, I'll allow it regardless of the rules involved, they used their heads and wits and played against my wits. If a player tries a debate on rules like what you are describing though, I tend to get very angry. This is like saying that a 1 foot tall pixie could manage to trip a rogue on a 5 foot ledge into falling off. Nope, nuh uh... Ain't gonna happen, even if the rules say it is possible, pixie ain't doing it. This came up, and I said no right there. The player insisted it would work and refused to play until i looked it up. When a player starts this, it becomes a problem. The DM has final call, make sure your players understand that. The reason the DM has final call is because you could go on for hours about rules debates.
SpoonyBard 04-22-07, 02:54 AM	When a player starts this, it becomes a problem. The DM has final call, make sure your players understand that. The reason the DM has final call is because you could go on for hours about rules debates. My players know that I, as the DM, have the final call. They ALSO know that I am a by-the-book DM, and I play by the rules as tightly as possible. And why SHOULD I have said no the moment they tried this? The mage did something to make the fighter immune to his magic, then dropped antimagic on the area. I don't see why there was no reason for them to come up with this idea in character.
temparus2000 04-22-07, 02:58 AM	Wow... you know, you should really have just said the moment they tried it, "NO!" I wouldn't care if it was legal or not at that point. I reward players who think, but only when they think within character. Something like this is a question of rules, and therefore, gets no reward. If a player manages to lead a dragon into a trap of stalagmite from the ceiling, I'll allow it regardless of the rules involved, they used their heads and wits and played against my wits. If a player tries a debate on rules like what you are describing though, I tend to get very angry. This is like saying that a 1 foot tall pixie could manage to trip a rogue on a 5 foot ledge into falling off. Nope, nuh uh... Ain't gonna happen, even if the rules say it is possible, pixie ain't doing it. This came up, and I said no right there. The player insisted it would work and refused to play until i looked it up. When a player starts this, it becomes a problem. The DM has final call, make sure your players understand that. The reason the DM has final call is because you could go on for hours about rules debates. my point exactly. If you're asking "do the rules technically allow for this?" then the answer is yes. But there are a legion of things that are broken but technically allowed. That's what DM's are for. If you don't care for my earlier response of "the ring is still affected", then casually remind the players that if this tactic works for them it will also work for enemy NPC's. And in that regard the players are infinitely out-numbered.
SephDragoon 04-22-07, 10:08 AM	And why SHOULD I have said no the moment they tried this? The mage did something to make the fighter immune to his magic, then dropped antimagic on the area. I don't see why there was no reason for them to come up with this idea in character. Because, the game becomes no fun at this point. Your job as a DM is to keep the game fun. We had a problem with our characters being way too overpowered for the enemies we faced, and they were the proper CR too. The problem was, we kept killing them too quick, to the point that our newest player could not even manage to ATTACK the enemy the entire first session they were with us. This became a problem of fun for the player, and also for us, because battles ended just so anti-climactically (though it became a little hillarious with the irony). My DM did something about it that we all agreed to, because it was for the good of the game. A DM puts his foot down for the good of the game. Trust me, if you allow your players to do something like that unchecked, they will start to get bored quickly. The game is no fun with godmode on.
FlimFlam 04-22-07, 11:34 AM	Because, the game becomes no fun at this point. So you're the one who decides what is and is not fun for each gaming group? We should all play by your rules then, otherwise we won't have any fun? :rolleyes:
SpoonyBard 04-22-07, 12:15 PM	Trust me, if you allow your players to do something like that unchecked, they will start to get bored quickly. The game is no fun with godmode on. You... clearly don't know my players. The mage in question has a dozen combos he uses when he honestly thinks his character could die... And other than that, he tries to use varied spells as possible. He likes to figure out how things work, and IF things work, and my party has a LOT of fun finding new and interesting ways to have items and spells and abilities interact. My party does what they think is coolest, even if something else would be more effective (unless they're seriously at risk of death or something like that). So yeah, he can still have fun without thinking his character's likely to die...