Post/Author/DateTime	Post
curan69 03-17-06, 11:18 AM	I had a few questions about arrows and anti-magic fields. 1. If I am on one side and i fire a +3 arrow THROUGH the anti-magic field at a target on the other side is the arrow affected at all? 2. if the arrow originates from INSIDE the anti-magic field what happens when the arrow leaves the anti-magic field? I tend to think that if the magic effect is present before the anti-magic field is, then it is only suppressed. For example. A cleric casts anti-magic field. the cleric has +3 arrows that were already enchanted. The Cleric fires the arrows OUT of the anti-magic field. The Cleric would only get +1 to hit ( for the masterwork) but would add +3 to damage ( as long as the target is outside the anti-magic field) because once the arrows leave the anti-magic field the magic is no longer suppressed. Does that sound right? second thought......if the bow was a flaming bow, i would think that the flaming property WOULD NOT be transfered to the arrows inside an anti-magic field. If the arrows were already flaming before anti-magic field was cast( oil of flaming arrow) then they would be flaming when they left the anit-magic field. Does that sound right?
Wind of Darkness 03-17-06, 11:25 AM	I had a few questions about arrows and anti-magic fields. 1. If I am on one side and i fire a +3 arrow THROUGH the anti-magic field at a target on the other side is the arrow affected at all? The arrow'sm abilities are suppressed while it is in the field, and begin to operate again as soon as it leaves. So for all intents and purposes: No. It's a +3 arrow it hits the target. 2. if the arrow originates from INSIDE the anti-magic field what happens when the arrow leaves the anti-magic field? It's abilities activate again once it leaves. As long as the target is outside the field, the arrow has its full magical effect. I tend to think that if the magic effect is present before the anti-magic field is, then it is only suppressed. I tend to think that by RAW, you are correct. For example. A cleric casts anti-magic field. the cleric has +3 arrows that were already enchanted. The Cleric fires the arrows OUT of the anti-magic field. The Cleric would only get +1 to hit ( for the masterwork) but would add +3 to damage ( as long as the target is outside the anti-magic field) because once the arrows leave the anti-magic field the magic is no longer suppressed. I hadn't thought of that. One could argue it wither way in terms of what the to-hit should be. It is unequivocally +3 to damage, however. second thought......if the bow was a flaming bow, i would think that the flaming property WOULD NOT be transfered to the arrows inside an anti-magic field. I agree. If the property is on the bow itself, it will not affect the arrow. However, the arrows own abiulities function once it leaves.
Jotii 03-17-06, 04:33 PM	For example. A cleric casts anti-magic field. the cleric has +3 arrows that were already enchanted. The Cleric fires the arrows OUT of the anti-magic field. The Cleric would only get +1 to hit ( for the masterwork) but would add +3 to damage ( as long as the target is outside the anti-magic field) because once the arrows leave the anti-magic field the magic is no longer suppressed. Does that sound right? I don't know if there is any official ruling for this, but I'd argue that the cleric can apply the magical +3 bonus to hit. Remember that AC does not only represent dodging abilities, but also armor, magic and divine wards. I've always thought that magic weapons bypass either effect, and if none is present, the 10 base AC.
runestar 03-18-06, 12:32 AM	I don't know if there is any official ruling for this, but I'd argue that the cleric can apply the magical +3 bonus to hit. Remember that AC does not only represent dodging abilities, but also armor, magic and divine wards. I've always thought that magic weapons bypass either effect, and if none is present, the 10 base AC. It's a bit of both actually. Problem is, the to-hit enhancement bonus may just as much be some innate magic making your arrow easier to aim(which would be suppressed and lost while in an AMF) as much as it penetrating armour more readily(being sharper etc), which would be regained once it leaves an AMF. The DMG does not go into nitty gritty details about how exactly magical arrows make it easier to hit, just that they do. Perhaps rule that 1d(enhancment bonus) of the arrow is negated due to the antimagic properties of the field?
smrtgmp 03-18-06, 12:41 AM	1. If I am on one side and i fire a +3 arrow THROUGH the anti-magic field at a target on the other side is the arrow affected at all?I would say no, provided the individual making the attack and the one being targeted both lie outside of the AMG. 2. if the arrow originates from INSIDE the anti-magic field what happens when the arrow leaves the anti-magic field? I tend to think that if the magic effect is present before the anti-magic field is, then it is only suppressed. For example. A cleric casts anti-magic field. the cleric has +3 arrows that were already enchanted. The Cleric fires the arrows OUT of the anti-magic field. The Cleric would only get +1 to hit ( for the masterwork) but would add +3 to damage ( as long as the target is outside the anti-magic field) because once the arrows leave the anti-magic field the magic is no longer suppressed. Does that sound right?I agree with your ruling. I strikes me as being both sound and fair. second thought......if the bow was a flaming bow, i would think that the flaming property WOULD NOT be transfered to the arrows inside an anti-magic field. If the arrows were already flaming before anti-magic field was cast( oil of flaming arrow) then they would be flaming when they left the anit-magic field. Does that sound right?Again, I'm with you.
zlatko 03-18-06, 10:01 AM	You got the logic of it. Nice to see that for a change.
Dragonteuthis 03-18-06, 12:40 PM	You're not alone. Even the developers find antimagic fields frustrating (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20051216a) .