Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bull's eye 03-10-07, 01:34 AM	My character (Wizard) is getting pretty tough and I think the biggest weakness to him is of course an anti magic field. Any ideas on how to bypass, destroy, or circumvent an antimagic field?
runestar 03-10-07, 02:42 AM	Hide behind a tower shield.
The_Cheeseman 03-10-07, 02:44 AM	The only core way of beating an antimagic field is with the 9th-level spell, Mordenkainen's disjunction, which has a base % chance of destroying the field (and anything magical inside of it, if successful). Beyond that, there is a feat called Initiate of Mystra in the Player's Guide to Faerun that allows one to make a skill check to ignore the effects of antimagic field when casting a spell. You're not likely to qualify for that feat, however. You can also use the epic spell seed "Ward" to make you immune to antimagic field. Finally, all deities are immune to it (and dispel magic) so if you can somehow get divine rank 0, that'd work (though you'd need to be a 30 HD true dragon to do that within the rules as written).
FrostHammer 03-10-07, 02:49 AM	Can't you take a level of Warblade and take Iron Heart Surge or something like that?
Iver Gearsham 03-10-07, 03:58 AM	TK violent thrust shoot the fool in the AMF you can Fly per spell keeping your distance from melee and unload a few quivers of Large sized arrows for 1d6 damage per arrow or more if you use bigger arrows. Funny things like Shrunk Items spring back on top or near them. Glass globes filled with mud from Transmute Rock to Mud TKed in to them coat them in stone. For some more insight in to AFM fighting look at Lord's of Madness at the Beholder section they do AFM the best.
CantripN 03-10-07, 04:05 AM	For a Wizard: Invoke Magic. 9th level Sor/Wiz, Swift Action casting time, allows you to cast in an AMF or dead magic zone for 1 round (up to 4th level spells). Source: Lords of Madness.
Fireclave 03-10-07, 04:25 AM	1) Don't let yourself get caught in a AMF. It's only a 10ft radius emanation. Just move out of the way. 2) Buff the fighter 3) Switch to your reserve (ranged) weapon 4) Remember that a Twillight Mithral chainshirt is still a chainshirt in a AMF 5) Prepare spells that completely bypass SR, such as the Orb of [Energy] spells 6) Get creative with your spells and the terrain. Drop the ceiling on your foes if you have to. 7) Remember that if your foe is in a AMF, chances are that he's a caster currently without functioning magic items and/or the ability to cast. That's potentially a good thing. Find a way to use that against him. 8) TK stuff: Rocks. Trees. Bigger rocks. Whole quivers worth of arrows. Even bigger rocks. You foe's allies. Boulders. 9) Use aid other with your party's melee characters 10) Monologue! AMF has a duration. A very long duration, but a duration none the less. Monologue until the spell runs its course. If you have trouble trying to figure out how to fill up that time, speak like Mojo Jojo. If you have a powerpoint presentation, now is the time to boot it up. 11) If all else fails...run!
EmperorTippy 03-12-07, 02:13 AM	Look at most of the force spells. TK Sphere and resilient Sphere should be immune to it like Wall of Force and forcecage are. The AMF description says Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions). Now the Wall Of Force description. The wall cannot move, it is immune to damage of all kinds, and it is unaffected by most spells, including dispel magic. However, disintegrate immediately destroys it, as does a rod of cancellation, a sphere of annihilation, or a mage’s disjunction spell. So the spell says exactly what effects it. Nothing else in the rules does unless it specifically says that it affects Wall Of Force. Now lets loo kat TK Sphere. The sphere is not subject to damage of any sort except from a rod of cancellation, a rod of negation, a disintegrate spell, or a targeted dispel magic spell. That and wall of force are almost word for word the same. Its immune to AMF under the rules. So is TK sphere. So TK sphere the whole AMF field and lift it up a couple of hundred feet and then dismiss it. 20d6 falling damage that can't be stopped by magic due to the AMF. The only real question is whether or not you can actually cast a spell that can operate inside of an AMF while you are inside of the AMF.
groveborn 03-12-07, 04:37 AM	Ah, the fun stuff. Use spells that have an instantaneous effect, as was mentioned the Orb Spells. Use summoned critters to THROW stuff at them. Use an ethereal jaunt spell and lob magic missiles while in the ethereal plane. Go and kill everything else that isn't in an AMF while your fighter kills the bastard with the AMF. Go buy an attack dog (think of what that would do!) and go after the Wiz's familiar. In fact, throw viles of acid at him too. Use smokesticks to make it hard to breathe. Just face off and fight him.
Seeker95 03-12-07, 09:09 AM	1) Don't let yourself get caught in a AMF. 11) If all else fails...run!Best advice of all! To rephrase: Don't go there. If you go there, run.
Salick 03-12-07, 11:40 AM	all instantaneous conjuration spells ignore anti magic fields. aka all the orb spells. A wizard that casts anti magic field with all the new spells around is asking to get blasted by one.
ArcTan 03-12-07, 03:21 PM	Can't you take a level of Warblade and take Iron Heart Surge or something like that? I consider this a widely propagated error. IHS only works on effects *targeted on you*, not on area effects. The fact that CustServ disagrees just shows that CustServ doesn't think very hard when it comes to balance *or* flavor of new maneuvers/spells.
ArcTan 03-12-07, 03:30 PM	Hide behind a tower shield. This doesn't work, because the text within the desc for AMF (the "invisible barrier") overrides the normal way an emanation works.
ArcTan 03-12-07, 03:33 PM	2) Buff the fighter Well, the point of an AMF is that the buffs go away if the Fighter touches it. 5) Prepare spells that completely bypass SR, such as the Orb of [Energy] spells Euch, yeah. If the DM allows those damn things, then yes, the smart thing would be to use them in an AMF (and in general). 10) Monologue! AMF has a duration. A very long duration, but a duration none the less. Monologue until the spell runs its course. If you have trouble trying to figure out how to fill up that time, speak like Mojo Jojo. If you have a powerpoint presentation, now is the time to boot it up. Er... unless you're playing in a deliberately silly campaign, no sane DM actually allows this kind of nonsense to work. Speaking is a free action in D&D *within reasonable limits*. Start talking too long and people will just begin to take actions during your monologue.
ArcTan 03-12-07, 03:39 PM	Its immune to AMF under the rules. So is TK sphere. So TK sphere the whole AMF field and lift it up a couple of hundred feet and then dismiss it. 20d6 falling damage that can't be stopped by magic due to the AMF. That's *not* how it works. The AMF will not *destroy* a conjured force effect, but it does prevent the force effect from being conjured. No spells work in an AMF, including spells that create things that are themselves immune to AMF. You can create a wall of force outside the AMF that will remain there if the AMF center tries to walk through it, but you can't create the wall of force or telekinetic sphere within the AMF itself. The only real question is whether or not you can actually cast a spell that can operate inside of an AMF while you are inside of the AMF. You can't target a spell at the area of the AMF, whether or not you're in it. Spells don't work in the AMF, period. Spell *effects* that aren't considered truly magical will persist inside an AMF, but you can't make them in there. You can't summon a creature into the area of an AMF *at all*, regardless of where you're standing and regardless of the creature's SR -- you can only summon the creature outside the AMF's area and then walk him in there and see if his SR resists it. So no, you can't cast a TK sphere around the center of an AMF. The spell specifically prevents you from doing that. What you could do is create the TK sphere outside the AMF and then hurl it at the AMF center, for whatever good that would do (not much -- it's weightless and moves slowly).
ArcTan 03-12-07, 03:43 PM	Use an ethereal jaunt spell and lob magic missiles while in the ethereal plane. Doesn't work that way. Force effects and abjurations extend from the Material Plane to the Ethereal Plane, but *not* vice versa. You can't do jack to anyone in the real world while you're ethereal. And, in fact, since the AMF is an abjuration and does extend from the Material Plane to the Ethereal, if you walk into the AMF under the influence of ethereal jaunt, it gets suppressed and you pop back into the material world. Go and kill everything else that isn't in an AMF while your fighter kills the bastard with the AMF. Which is why, if you're a smart Wizard using the AMF, the best way to do it is to have your buffed meleers surrounding you in a cramped space ready to AoO anyone who tries to get into the AMF, with the meleers ready to step back into the AMF's space if anyone begins casting offensively. Go buy an attack dog (think of what that would do!) and go after the Wiz's familiar. In fact, throw viles of acid at him too. Use smokesticks to make it hard to breathe. Just face off and fight him. Enh. Using straight-up weapons is a better idea, at high levels, than low-level tricks like smokesticks and acid vials.
Starmage21 03-12-07, 03:51 PM	If there is an anti-magic field, someone probobly casted it. Send in your fighter against the caster. A cleric or wizard with no buffs is fighter-bait.
ZiggZagg 03-12-07, 03:56 PM	Where has it been written that just because a spell bypasses SR that it now goes throug an Anti-Magic Field? Isn't magic still magic?
ArcTan 03-12-07, 04:18 PM	Where has it been written that just because a spell bypasses SR that it now goes throug an Anti-Magic Field? Isn't magic still magic? It certainly does not say that. For one thing, AMFs block Supernatural Abilities, which explicitly bypass SR. However: If you cast antimagic field in an area occupied by a summoned creature that has spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against the creature’s spell resistance to make it wink out. (The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.) And: Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions). Things like the Orb spells work because they've been defined as Instantaneous Conjurations, which means that when you cast an orb of acid, the magic is merely forming the orb within your hand and throwing it -- when it enters the AMF, it's just a ball of acid with kinetic energy behind it, and there's no magic for the AMF to dispel. Personally I dislike this logic, and the Orb spells (which basically make specializing in Conjuration and banning Evocation a no-brainer), but whatever.
dragynson1 03-12-07, 04:24 PM	Where has it been written that just because a spell bypasses SR that it now goes throug an Anti-Magic Field? Isn't magic still magic? thats what i would think ,
ZiggZagg 03-13-07, 12:37 PM	Well it sounds to me like a house rule of "if it was conjured by a spell, it is negated in the field"...of course with the specific exceptions the spell notes
ArcTan 03-13-07, 02:18 PM	Well it sounds to me like a house rule of "if it was conjured by a spell, it is negated in the field"...of course with the specific exceptions the spell notes I wouldn't mind that as a houserule, but it is a houserule. The annoying thing, of course, is that all heal spells technically fall into the category of Instantaneous Conjurations, which begs the question of what happens if every healing spell you've ever gotten gets "dispelled" when you walk into an AMF and you suddenly fall to -300 HP. Most DMs wouldn't be so silly, of course, but then the real question is whether it's really necessary to make bound planar beings vanish in an AMF (you paid a lot of money for that spell, might as well let 'em stick around) or make things like created water or a wall of stone vanish. The wall of stone probably should stay, for the same reasons that the wall of force stays. Really, the only balance issue with Instantaneous Conjurations is those damned Orb spells, and the easy way to deal with that is just to ban the spells.
ZiggZagg 03-13-07, 02:23 PM	You don't need to ban them, just alter them. My one player uses them, and yeah they can be a nuisance, but everything has a counter. Resistances for one. If you really don't like them, you can even change their school back to Evocation, make SR apply, raise their spell level, there are so many fixes that it doesn't have to some to banning. And remember, the players shouldn't argue as long as you are fair and consistent. You are the DM after all
Johnathan_Vagabond 03-13-07, 04:34 PM	Er... unless you're playing in a deliberately silly campaign, no sane DM actually allows this kind of nonsense to work. Speaking is a free action in D&D *within reasonable limits*. Start talking too long and people will just begin to take actions during your monologue. You could use a bardic fascinate to fulfill this effect. A bard with Perform: Oratory could facsinate the caster (if he's alone) or try to affect the group and keep talking until the whole thing runs out.
ArcTan 03-13-07, 05:56 PM	You could use a bardic fascinate to fulfill this effect. A bard with Perform: Oratory could facsinate the caster (if he's alone) or try to affect the group and keep talking until the whole thing runs out. A Fascinate effect probably won't work if hostilities have already begun, which they probably have if someone's put up an AMF.
runestar 03-13-07, 09:52 PM	Iron heart surge ends an AMF effect as well.:)
Seeker95 03-13-07, 10:22 PM	Iron heart surge ends an AMF effect as well.:)Just acknowledging the lack of wide agreement on this:I consider this a widely propagated error. IHS only works on effects *targeted on you*, not on area effects. The fact that CustServ disagrees just shows that CustServ doesn't think very hard when it comes to balance *or* flavor of new maneuvers/spells.I agree with ArcTan on this. Targeted on you is pretty narrowly / succinctly defined, mechanically speaking.
Hendel 03-13-07, 11:39 PM	all instantaneous conjuration spells ignore anti magic fields. aka all the orb spells. A wizard that casts anti magic field with all the new spells around is asking to get blasted by one. Where does it say that?
Magetastic 03-14-07, 12:35 AM	Fly over him and dump a bag of shrunken boulders on him. You don't even need to use the normal standard action to unshrink the boulders. Bad guy go splat.
redraven 03-14-07, 01:34 AM	Ah, the good ole Antimagic Field debate. Things like the Orb spells work because they've been defined as Instantaneous Conjurations, which means that when you cast an orb of acid, the magic is merely forming the orb within your hand and throwing it -- when it enters the AMF, it's just a ball of acid with kinetic energy behind it, and there's no magic for the AMF to dispel. I just want to mention that this is a highly, highly contested point. Some feel, yeah, that nonmagical ball of force or coldness can be propelled at high speeds without any sort of magic at all. Others are not as convinced. First of all, regardless of their status as instantaneous conjurations and lack of SR, they still need Line of Effect to their targets. An Antimagic Field blocks Line of Effect per the RotG: Reading Spell Descriptions (Part 1) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040727a): Line of Effect: A straight, unblocked line between two locations on the battlefield. Line of effect is just like line of sight, except that restrictions on vision don't apply. On the other hand, some things that you can see through can block line of effect, such as a wall of force or an antimagic field. Though the rules don't specifically say so, you always have line of effect to yourself. Saying that "kinetic force" keeps the orbs flying is not only inventing rules text, it also makes no sense in context of what the spell does. If kinetic force really mattered, for example, then it stands to reason that instead of a spell range it would list a range increment. Per RAW, shooting an Orb of Acid at someone 5 feet outside the maximum range does nothing - no "splash" damage or anything of the kind. If said Orb was truly nonmagical, then why would it not keep going? I have another question. If the Orb spells defeat an Antimagic Field, what about a Globe of Invulnerability? Is that defeated as well?
runestar 03-14-07, 02:03 AM	The AMF spell itself clearly states that orb spells will work against it. Where is the confusion stemming from?:confused: Summoned creatures of any type and incorporeal undead wink out if they enter an antimagic field. They reappear in the same spot once the field goes away. Time spent winked out counts normally against the duration of the conjuration that is maintaining the creature. If you cast antimagic field in an area occupied by a summoned creature that has spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against the creature’s spell resistance to make it wink out. (The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.) A globe of invul will block out orb spells since it explicitly states that it blocks out all spells of 4th lv or lower. This is a case of the in-game text superceding the rules, and is meant to deviate from existing mechanics.:)
ArcTan 03-14-07, 02:32 AM	Fly over him and dump a bag of shrunken boulders on him. You don't even need to use the normal standard action to unshrink the boulders. Bad guy go splat. ...I wonder if repeating this is going to become my purpose of being on the forums, but dropping things on people still requires an attack roll. If you're a Wizard, your attack bonus isn't that good. Even if the thing is somehow being magically expanded or brought into being or whatever when you drop it, still. Attack roll. If traps have to make attack rolls, you have to make an attack roll.
ArcTan 03-14-07, 02:36 AM	The AMF spell itself clearly states that orb spells will work against it. Where is the confusion stemming from?:confused: That this doesn't really make sense, since the orb being the "effect" of an instantaneous conjuration introduces all kinds of problems. (Can you conjure kinetic energy as well as matter, for instance, and is that kinetic energy still an "effect" that can't be dispelled because it's "mundane"?) A globe of invul will block out orb spells since it explicitly states that it blocks out all spells of 4th lv or lower. This is a case of the in-game text superceding the rules, and is meant to deviate from existing mechanics.:) Yeah, but people are saying the Orb spells don't "cast a spell" on the target (which would definitely be blocked by an AMF) but that they just "create a mundane orb of acid" that it the flings toward the target, so that the target is just hit by a mundane orb of acid, which the AMF has no reason to suppress. If it's actually a spell effect, in other words, it's *magic* and the AMF will suppress the magic. If it's not magic, then it's just stuff, like the water create water makes, and neither an AMF *nor* a globe of invulnerability stops stuff that's just stuff. ...I don't actually think an Orb should be allowed to target something inside a GoI. But this is why I don't like the Orbs -- because the flavor rulings for why they make sense don't actually make sense.
runestar 03-14-07, 03:06 AM	I think you are thinking too much. Is the orb an instantaneous conjuration for interacting with AMF? And is it a 4th lv spell(for purposes of interaction with globe of invul)? I personally feel that it is just that straightforward.:)
Venator 03-14-07, 04:23 AM	Orbs work fine if they are cast into an AMF. The only magic involved here is the creatation of the orb. The orb itself is not magical, its simply a small ball of whatever that the caster throws at its target. Its no different than being able to magicly "create" a baseball and toss it at someone, only in this case the baseball happens to be fire or smt...
Hendel 03-14-07, 07:10 PM	So, if the Orb of Force is a Conjuration spell and the duration is instantaneous ("the spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast"), then after I throw it there is a round ball of force at the target's feet. This is true even if the target is in the middle of an antimagic field. The other questions I have with the orb spells are: If I am throwing it, why are there no range increments (other than that the spell description does not have any)? How does your average arcane caster throw one in excess of 170ft or so? If I miss can I pick it up and throw it back? If I hit can I pick it up and throw it back? How long will the force, ice, acid, etc stay? These are questions that need to be asked I think.
runestar 03-14-07, 10:27 PM	You know jolly well the rules of the orbs as described in CA. It is simply meant as a 1-shot ranged damage spell. As for the other discrepancies, dnd mechanics was never necessarily meant to make sense.:) So don't grow any white hairs agonizing over such dilemmas...:P
ZiggZagg 03-15-07, 12:48 PM	Since this is obviously one of those topics no one is going to budge on, I am going to leave this thread with this comment. The orb is magic, at least in my game. It will not go through an anti magic field, in my game. It will be blocked by the globe of invulnerability, in my game. And this is how it will always be ruled, in my game.
ArcTan 03-15-07, 05:15 PM	You know jolly well the rules of the orbs as described in CA. It is simply meant as a 1-shot ranged damage spell. As for the other discrepancies, dnd mechanics was never necessarily meant to make sense.:) So don't grow any white hairs agonizing over such dilemmas...:P It's not just that it doesn't make sense, it's that it doesn't make sense in a way that creates overpowered spells that do things spells shouldn't do. AMFs *should* exclude all direct-damage spells, or at least those of any real use (I'll let the core acid splash stay). Based on flavor and on preexisting rules, it's *not supposed to work* that you can shoot direct damage with magic at AMF'd opponents, or opponents whose SR you don't beat. People use AMFs or buff their SR with the expectation that whatever you do to them, at least you can't shoot them with a direct damage spell. The Orb spells seem designed to totally violate that expectation, and that's why I don't like them.
Molot 03-15-07, 07:10 PM	The other questions I have with the orb spells are: If I am throwing it, why are there no range increments (other than that the spell description does not have any)?Fire may burn off, electricity may discharge. Magic that gives initial velocity may not work if you want greater distances. I can think of more reasons, but there are two for balls here, should be enough to prove it possible How does your average arcane caster throw one in excess of 170ft or so?With magic in his hand, wasn't it? If I miss can I pick it up and throw it back? If I hit can I pick it up and throw it back? No, it discharges when it touch anything. Possibly harmlessly. Fire might burn off already. Spell knew exactly how much fuel orb needs for a given distance, and it just got used exactly at the moment it was supposed to hit. How long will the force, ice, acid, etc stay?Exactly as long, as it would took to hit the target. Look up for fire-fuel thing above. These are questions that need to be asked I think.I think it was easy to answer them.
redraven 03-16-07, 07:08 PM	I think you are thinking too much. Is the orb an instantaneous conjuration for interacting with AMF? And is it a 4th lv spell(for purposes of interaction with globe of invul)? I personally feel that it is just that straightforward.:) And so the Orb spells are not considered a 4th level spell for the purpose of AMF? The Orb spells are not considered instantaneous conjurations for the purpose of Globe of Invulnerability? The Orb spells cannot both be a spell and not be a spell when cast against someone. They are either magical or they are not. They either defeat both an AMF and GoI or they do not defeat either one. I think it was easy to answer them. Good. Then you should not have any problem with this one: Do the Orb spells (and Rays, etc) need Line of Effect to the intended target in order to effect them?
runestar 03-17-07, 02:26 AM	And so the Orb spells are not considered a 4th level spell for the purpose of AMF? The Orb spells are not considered instantaneous conjurations for the purpose of Globe of Invulnerability? The Orb spells cannot both be a spell and not be a spell when cast against someone. They are either magical or they are not. They either defeat both an AMF and GoI or they do not defeat either one. You are taking my explanation completely out of context. It is treated as a 4th lv spell for interacting with AMF. However, it is also an instantaneous conjuration, which AMF explicitly states it does not block out. So it would go right through an AMF, because that is what the spell states. In this case, the latter supersedes the former. Globe of invul does not care if your spell is an instantaneous conjuration or not. All that matters is whether it is a 4th lv spell or lower. If it is, then it gets blocked out, whether it is an instantaneous conjuration or not, because the spell desc says so. If it is 5th lv or higher, then it goes right through. What I have said will likely not make logical sense because what I have done is to simply take the individual spell descriptions and interpret them literally. You are argue that yes, it does not compute. And yes, I may agree with you. But again, I stress that I believe my interpretation is in adherence with the RAW. To heck with common sense...:P
CelestialBarbarian 03-17-07, 05:04 AM	I rarely disagree with runestar--in fact this might be the first time--but I have to agree with those who believe that an AMF blocks the orb spells too. I'm not sure, in the first place, that you can even have a mundane sphere of acid, cold, electricity or fire. I understand that there's a phenomenon called ball lightning, but this doesn't actually create a physical sphere that you could throw. Fire might, likewise, momentarily take on a spherical shape (although I'm not 100% certain of that) but unless you actually have a spherical object that's burning, you couldn't throw the spherical fire either. Cold isn't even something that can manifest any shape, but is simply a lower temperature. Of course it's possible to create a sphere of some cold material, like it's possible to set a sphere of flamable material on fire, but the orb spells don't creature spheres of burning or cold material. Acid is the only "energy" type that's actually comprised of matter, and except in a weightless environment a liquid won't naturally form a sphere. Even in a weightless environment you can't throw a liquid sphere; when you touch it, it loses its spherical shape and surrounds what you touch it with. Ok, now let's say for the sake of argument that you could conjure a mundane version of these sphere of "energy." If you held mundane acid or fire, it would burn you. If you held mundane cold it would, um, freeze or burn you. If you held magical electricity it would shock you. It's only the fact that the orbs are magical that they don't affect the caster but only the target. So no, they don't work in an AMF. :)
runestar 03-17-07, 06:38 AM	Ok, now let's say for the sake of argument that you could conjure a mundane version of these sphere of "energy." If you held mundane acid or fire, it would burn you. If you held mundane cold it would, um, freeze or burn you. If you held magical electricity it would shock you. Hi, CB. It's been a while...:) While there is no text to support this, I don't think you actually have to hold the ball of "elemental mundane stuff'. Perhaps the reason why I am inclined to think that it would work the way I did is because I have been fed a steady diet of wuxia martial arts flicks/comics which show the characters doing exactly this on a regular basis. In effect, they are using their "ki" to manipulate the natural elements around them. For example, imagine this scene: "A man is facing off another adversary. There is a giant urn containing some liquid inside. The man gestures, and a glob of liquid rises out of the urn to revolve around the man's outstretched palm. With a flick of his wrist, he sends the globe of water hurtling through the air where it slams into his foe and passes right through him, slaying him almost instantly." Similarly, there have been equivalents for fire, frost and even force...I am referring to the "Stormriders" comic. As such, while it is magic which somehow conjures the mundane element into existence and propels it towards your target, the element itself is not magic. Nor does the spell desc actually say anything about you actually having to come into contact with it. As such, this does seem to offer a small window of opportunity to take creative liberties with how the spell operates, so long as it does not directly violate the mechanics of the spell as printed. Yes, you can say that it is a comic after all, and the events inside are obviously exaggerated for reader pleasure. However, does this not extend to dnd as well?
CelestialBarbarian 03-17-07, 06:54 AM	Hi, CB. It's been a while...:) While there is no text to support this, I don't think you actually have to hold the ball of "elemental mundane stuff'. Perhaps the reason why I am inclined to think that it would work the way I did is because I have been fed a steady diet of wuxia martial arts flicks/comics which show the characters doing exactly this on a regular basis. In effect, they are using their "ki" to manipulate the natural elements around them. For example, imagine this scene: "A man is facing off another adversary. There is a giant urn containing some liquid inside. The man gestures, and a glob of liquid rises out of the urn to revolve around the man's outstretched palm. With a flick of his wrist, he sends the globe of water hurtling through the air where it slams into his foe and passes right through him, slaying him almost instantly." Similarly, there have been equivalents for fire, frost and even force...I am referring to the "Stormriders" comic. As such, while it is magic which somehow conjures the mundane element into existence and propels it towards your target, the element itself is not magic. Nor does the spell desc actually say anything about you actually having to come into contact with it. As such, this does seem to offer a small window of opportunity to take creative liberties with how the spell operates, so long as it does not directly violate the mechanics of the spell as printed. Yes, you can say that it is a comic after all, and the events inside are obviously exaggerated for reader pleasure. However, does this not extend to dnd as well? I guess it has been a while. My father died two weeks ago. Even if it's magic that propels "mundane" spheres that cannot exist without magic, the magic would fail in the amf and the sphere would drop harmlessly to the ground.
Molot 03-17-07, 07:44 AM	Good. Then you should not have any problem with this one: Do the Orb spells (and Rays, etc) need Line of Effect to the intended target in order to effect them?I don't have problem with it, as I'm not going to answer. I'm not a rule lawyer. I can answer any physic or common sense question. And I did it so far. If you have no more arguments on physic or sense part, then just confess it. If you have - give it for discussion. And for the rule lawyering I only know that Orbs are Instantaneous Conjurnation (Creation), and the AMF description says "The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field". End of story, rules are clear. Whole different discussion is if it should be that way. Whatever, I'm interested in things as they are and not as they should be.
redraven 03-17-07, 07:01 PM	I don't have problem with it, as I'm not going to answer. I'm not a rule lawyer. I can answer any physic or common sense question. And I did it so far. If you have no more arguments on physic or sense part, then just confess it. If you have - give it for discussion. If you want physics and common sense questions, then I will give you some of those. I think any such exercise is moot seeing as how this is strictly a matter of the game rules and not the physics of D&D (which are lacking or nonexistent), but whatever. What is nonmagical force? How long can an Orb maintain its shape without magic? How long can an Orb maintain its speed without magic? If an Orb of Acid has a maximum range of X feet, what happens when said Orb is fired at a target at X + 5 feet away? Same as above, what happens when fired at the broad side of a barn X + 5 feet away? Additionally, I have a problem with some of your answers that likewise go against not only the rules but "common sense" as well. For example, you stated: No, it discharges when it touch anything. Possibly harmlessly. Fire might burn off already. Spell knew exactly how much fuel orb needs for a given distance, and it just got used exactly at the moment it was supposed to hit. When asked, for example, how long an Orb spell will last. As instantaneous conjurations, the PHB outlines on page 173: "It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence." Thus, if we can wrap our minds around a nonmagic Orb of Force, then we are forced to accept that such Orbs last indefinitely after they miss and are actually physical objects that can picked up, stored, etcetera. I recommend Orbs of Fire as portable fires, Orbs of Electricity as lights, Orbs of Cold as refrigerators, Orbs of Sound as speakers, and Orbs of Force as Christmas tree decorations. And for the rule lawyering I only know that Orbs are Instantaneous Conjurnation (Creation), and the AMF description says "The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field". End of story, rules are clear. Whole different discussion is if it should be that way. Whatever, I'm interested in things as they are and not as they should be. The funny thing about that argument is the example given in the PHB text of Antimagic Field on page 200. "(The effects of instantaneous conjurations, such as create water, are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)" Is there a difference between water created to fill a bunch of containers and, say, Orb of Cold? I think there is, and I also believe it is quite clear what that difference is: the instantaneous conjurations listed in the PHB (with the exception of Acid Splash) are all things that will "last indefinitely without magic." A cleric with an active AMF walking around a kitchen filled with pots containing water via create water should not cause said water to disappear, nor should said cleric cause walls of stone to wink out and topple buildings. Those things could have been created hours, days, or years ago. Orb spells, presumably, do not last indefinitely, by your own admission (even though RAW they do). Regardless of the above, the linchpin sticking point is that Antimagic Field blocks Line of Effect, period. A create water spell cast into the area of an AMF will fail. A wall of stone cast into the the area of an AMF will fail. It logically follows that an Orb spell cast into the area of an AMF will fail. Globe of invul does not care if your spell is an instantaneous conjuration or not. All that matters is whether it is a 4th lv spell or lower. If it is, then it gets blocked out, whether it is an instantaneous conjuration or not, because the spell desc says so. If it is 5th lv or higher, then it goes right through. The problem is that if someone casts create water in midair over an active Globe of Invulnerability, does the water "wink out?" What if I filled a bucket two days ago with water via create water and then attempt to pour the water into an active Globe of Invulnerability? How long is the water considered a (mundane and nonmagical) spell effect? Forever? What about arrows crafted via Fabricate, is someone immune to those within a Globe of Invulnerability?
Molot 03-17-07, 07:55 PM	What is nonmagical force?About two hundred years ago there was identical question about thunders and other electricity effect. They had no theory. We have gravitation weaves theory, for example. So from our point of view it is more possible, than electric paralyser was from a point of view of someone 200 years ago. How long can an Orb maintain its shape without magic?Sphere is most stable shape on the world, you know. Ball Lightning is real life example that electricity can keep ball shape without magic. Fireworks do about the same with fire. Others are doable. How long can an Orb maintain its speed without magic?As any other object. If an Orb of Acid has a maximum range of X feet, what happens when said Orb is fired at a target at X + 5 feet away?It isn't. Magic will not work. It can aim the ball only up to X distance so will fail to do on greater. Imagine modern missile with self targeting. You can't fire it if it can't "lock" on a target. And it can't if target is to far. Should it mean that modern rockets are stopped by AMF? :D Same as above, what happens when fired at the broad side of a barn X + 5 feet away?Nothing. You can't do that. If you want to target given side, you effectively treats barn as a composition of objects. And the broad side is outside your reach. When asked, for example, how long an Orb spell will last. As instantaneous conjurations, the PHB outlines on page 173: "It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence."Ok, it does not need magic for existence, but it needs fuel (created with it, going my way of interpreting the spell) of some kind. If you use create water, do you expect that it will not disappear in hot environment? Or when it will be used to stop a fire? For me it disappear. Just like balls do when their environment, fuel and other conditions makes them . Is there a difference between water created to fill a bunch of containers and, say, Orb of Cold? I think there is, and I also believe it is quite clear what that difference is: the instantaneous conjurations listed in the PHB (with the exception of Acid Splash) are all things that will "last indefinitely without magic."So the water will last indefinitely even if drunk? nothing exists forever. Some things have just short enough time that is worth noticing. Regardless of the above, the linchpin sticking point is that Antimagic Field blocks Line of Effect, period. A create water spell cast into the area of an AMF will fail. A wall of stone cast into the the area of an AMF will fail. It logically follows that an Orb spell cast into the area of an AMF will fail.You can throw stone from that wall into the area. You can make given cleric wet with water. Why can't you throw a ball lightning on him?.. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the description says it flies from caster's hand or sth like that. That'd be just like a thrown stone gotten from a wall of stone. The problem is that if someone casts create water in midair over an active Globe of Invulnerability,End of story, I'm here to talk about AMF here. If you want to discuss Globe, I'm not the one.
Jere_RB 03-17-07, 08:03 PM	Personally... Move action: GTF out of the field Standard action: Twined, Searing Spelled, Sudden Maximized Orb of Fire right at the offending spellcaster's noggin. If you're playing a metamagic specialist sorcerer like I like to do, you don't even have to have it prepared ahead of time.
ArcTan 03-17-07, 08:13 PM	About two hundred years ago there was identical question about thunders and other electricity effect. They had no theory. We have gravitation weaves theory, for example. So from our point of view it is more possible, than electric paralyser was from a point of view of someone 200 years ago. This is nonsense. You're basically saying "It may not be magic because it may be some sort of physical force that doesn't exist in our world, that you've just made up to explain the effect of this magic spell, but that for some reason is distinct from the supernatural force in D&D that we call magic". By this logic, you could just as easily say that Bigby's crushing hand isn't magic at all, but made of some kind of "force" we "don't understand". (You know what we call forces we don't understand, because they're not real, because they have been made up for the sake of a fantasy game? MAGIC.) Sphere is most stable shape on the world, you know. Ball Lightning is real life example that electricity can keep ball shape without magic. Fireworks do about the same with fire. Others are doable. Spherical fireworks are spherical because the people who make them make balls of flammable material. Ball lightning has never actually been proven to exist. As any other object. Nonsense. Then the orb, like any other object following Newton's laws of motion, would keep on moving until it lost its kinetic energy to air resistance (a continuous process) or hit something. It would not suddenly *stop* after a certain point. It isn't. Magic will not work. It can aim the ball only up to X distance so will fail to do on greater. Imagine modern missile with self targeting. You can't fire it if it can't "lock" on a target. And it can't if target is to far. Should it mean that modern rockets are stopped by AMF? :D If the rocket's guidance system that was causing it to detonate at a certain range was made out of magic, then yes. Unless you're saying the magic somehow creates an invisible, intangible, and yet entirely nonmagical guidance system with a rangefinder and detonator. What, does the Orb contain a little circuit board with computer chips and laser emitters and things? Nothing. You can't do that. If you want to target given side, you effectively treats barn as a composition of objects. And the broad side is outside your reach. Yes. This is what the rules say. This is a ludicrous way for any "nonmagical object" to work. This only works if the thing providing motive force is some kind of complex system controlling it. And it's very, very hard for you to tell me that this complex system is not "magic" in a convincing way. We couldn't make something do exactly that with our technology today if we tried. It's a made-up effect with no physical basis that only exists in D&D. It's MAGIC. Ok, it does not need magic for existence, but it needs fuel (created with it, going my way of interpreting the spell) of some kind. If you use create water, do you expect that it will not disappear in hot environment? Or when it will be used to stop a fire? For me it disappear. Water doesn't just "disappear" when you throw it on a fire. It turns into steam. This is a real-life natural process we all know and understand. There is no real-life natural process by which acid disappears without any trace on its own after traveling more than a certain distance from its source. That's why claiming this is a "mundane" or "non-magical" process is ludicrous. Just like balls do when their environment, fuel and other conditions makes them . Under rules that don't have anything to do with the physical properties of ordinary objects, i.e. magical rules. So the water will last indefinitely even if drunk? nothing exists forever. Some things have just short enough time that is worth noticing. No. Things with a duration vanish into nothing at all when the magic wears off. The water does *not* vanish into nothing at all. Like all *real* objects, its mass/energy is conserved. When you drink it, it's absorbed through your stomach lining and passes through your bloodstream before being eliminated in your sweat and urine, to evaporate as water vapor and join rain clouds and so on and so forth. If the spell had a duration, then water I drank would vanish from my body when the spell wore off, and I'd suddenly get thirsty again when the spell ended. This doesn't happen. You can throw stone from that wall into the area. You can make given cleric wet with water. Why can't you throw a ball lightning on him?.. Because ball lightning, even if it exists, isn't a little ball you can pick up in your hand and throw. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the description says it flies from caster's hand or sth like that. That'd be just like a thrown stone gotten from a wall of stone. No, because you're *not* throwing it. You're not getting your Str bonus to damage or anything, right? It magically stops moving after it reaches the end of its range, instead of you being able to throw it a longer distance with less accuracy, right? It's some kind of *magic* propelling it from your hand and causing it to vanish after a certain point. End of story, I'm here to talk about AMF here. If you want to discuss Globe, I'm not the one. The point is that letting GoI work the way it does with Orbs creates a *contradiction* with AMF, which is one of the ways you can tell rules have been poorly written.
Molot 03-18-07, 10:03 AM	This is nonsense.No, it isn't. You're basically saying "It may not be magic because it may be some sort of physical force that doesn't exist in our world,Please, please, read before replying. I've just said that there are theories now that says it is possible. The fact we didn't prove all of them means no more than the fact that 200 years ago people wasn't able to prove electricity. And we do have EM fields, for example, that can interact with physical beings without magic... For example. By this logic, you could just as easily sayPlease, read my logic and try to understand what I'm writing before commenting it. And don't try to put words into my mouth - that's simply childish and silly. If you want to discuss, discuss what I've said, not what you want to see me saying. Could you? Spherical fireworks are spherical because the people who make them make balls of flammable material.And it is exactly how the Conjurnation [creation] fire spell would work by my logic. Haven't you read the parts about the fuel? If you read, what your words was meant to mean? if you didn't, please go back and do it, thank you. Ball lightning has never actually been proven to exist.Except some experiments emulated it quite successfully. Videos was even on Discovery channel. So even if it is not the force of nature, it's something that was created without magic and even filmed. Nonsense. Then the orb, like any other object following Newton's laws of motion, would keep on moving until it lost its kinetic energy to air resistance (a continuous process) or hit something. It would not suddenly *stop* after a certain point.Where did I say "suddenly"? I can't find it. Besides, according to Newton's law without any modifications, no car can ever stop. Ever. Anyway, you quoted mine "as any other object". So if that's nonsense, then tell me why. If the rocket's guidance system that was causing it to detonate at a certain range was made out of magic, then yes.High enough science is indistinguishable from magic, ya know. Unless you're saying the magic somehow creates an invisible, intangible, and yet entirely nonmagical guidance system with a rangefinder and detonator. What, does the Orb contain a little circuit board with computer chips and laser emitters and things?And maybe it's just buffs caster's eye and mind to allow him do the trick?.. Yes. This is what the rules say. This is a ludicrous way for any "nonmagical object" to work.Ball does not work that way. Targeting fails and a ball isn't even created, simple as this. Water doesn't just "disappear" when you throw it on a fire. It turns into steam. This is a real-life natural process we all know and understand.But you cannot accept a burning ball of flammable materials to burn out and change into CO2 and a stuff? Why? There is no real-life natural process by which acid disappears without any trace on its own after traveling more than a certain distance from its source. That's why claiming this is a "mundane" or "non-magical" process is ludicrous.If it hits, no problem... If it misses, it may burn the ground under the target, it may evaporate, it may oxidize itself in an air ant turn into harmless liquid... There are many possibilities. Under rules that don't have anything to do with the physical properties of ordinary objects, i.e. magical rules.I've asked you not to mix "possibility" discussion with rule discussion. No. Things with a duration vanish into nothing at all when the magic wears off.I've described what may happen with effects of the spell in discussion already, without breaking mass/energy preservation law and without having them last forever. Because ball lightning, even if it exists, isn't a little ball you can pick up in your hand and throw.Throwing it is a magic moment. I never said it isn't. But it can fly without a magic, once thrown. No, because you're *not* throwing it. You're not getting your Str bonus to damage or anything, right? Throwing with magic power, not physical one... What's the difference once it flies further without magic? It magically stops moving after it reaches the end of its range, instead of you being able to throw it a longer distance with less accuracy, right?I've answered it already. Targetting problem and ball not created if you cannot target. Read my previous post, and this one for my answer to your answer on the matter. If you will forget what I've answered and repeat already answered parts, the discussion will last indefinitely. It's some kind of *magic* propelling it from your hand and causing it to vanish after a certain point.It would be Evocation, if it was that way. By the rules it isn't. I may as well say it's the magic that allows you to target and creates ball with initial velocity and predictable lifetime. Differences are - I've described how it's possible, and it is consistent with spell's school. If the school will be changed in some errata or anything, Then the spell will work your way. The point is that letting GoI work the way it does with Orbs creates a *contradiction* with AMF, which is one of the ways you can tell rules have been poorly written.As I've said, I will not discuss the rules that should be, only the ones that are. I agree there is many problems within them, but that's WotC job to correct it globally, and DM's job at the table. I'm not one of them (at least currently), so I don't care too much.
Urithair 03-18-07, 01:33 PM	I'm pretty sure that by RAW Iron Heart Surge would kill AMF because it works on anything that 'effects' you, not anything that 'targets' you.
Seeker95 03-18-07, 02:11 PM	AMF does not affect you. It only affects magic. (Unless you *are* magic.)
ArcTan 03-18-07, 11:49 PM	No, it isn't. Please, please, read before replying. I've just said that there are theories now that says it is possible. The fact we didn't prove all of them means no more than the fact that 200 years ago people wasn't able to prove electricity. And we do have EM fields, for example, that can interact with physical beings without magic... For example. For what it's worth, no, there are no theories now that say a little solid ball of "force" that's not being generated by any kind of device is possible. The idea of a little ball of "force" you throw at someone to do "force damage" that then suddenly disappears is scientifically nonsensical. It's not "theoretically impossible" in that very little is "theoretically impossible" if you admit the idea of all kinds of ridiculous future technology we don't have exploiting ridiculous future scientific advances that might or might not happen. But it is, nonetheless, impossible by any reasonable definition of the word. Please, read my logic and try to understand what I'm writing before commenting it. And don't try to put words into my mouth - that's simply childish and silly. If you want to discuss, discuss what I've said, not what you want to see me saying. Could you? I'm not "putting words in your mouth", I'm saying why something you said is silly by demonstrating how it logically leads to another, identical thing that no one would try to defend. No one tries to say any of the other stupid "force" things in D&D are "theoretically possible" in real life and therefore not magical. Why should a magic missile be any more magical than an orb of force? And it is exactly how the Conjurnation [creation] fire spell would work by my logic. Haven't you read the parts about the fuel? If you read, what your words was meant to mean? if you didn't, please go back and do it, thank you. So it's conjuring a flaming ball of gunpowder, then, as opposed to an "orb of fire"? Is there a residue of ash left over afterwards? Can I block the flaming ball of gunpowder from hitting me with my shield? (Apparently not, since it's a ranged touch attack that ignores shield AC.) Except some experiments emulated it quite successfully. Videos was even on Discovery channel. So even if it is not the force of nature, it's something that was created without magic and even filmed. Even if you can create a big discharge of electricity, you can't hold it in your hand and direct it where you want it to go and have it hit there and dissipate. Where did I say "suddenly"? I can't find it. You're saying the spell as written makes sense. The spell as written has a maximum range with no range modifier -- i.e. it says the orb can only go so far, and go no further, period. Besides, according to Newton's law without any modifications, no car can ever stop. Ever. Sure it can. You just need an external force, like friction, to stop it. (Call me condescending if you want, but it's pretty clear you know next to nothing about physics. Newton's laws do, in fact, operate in the world around us. If they didn't they'd never have become laws. If you think that Newton's laws have "exceptions" because of mundane events like cars stopping then you don't actually understand Newton's laws.) An orb of acid should keep going at the velocity with which you throw it unless an external force acts on it. This could be air resistance, but the air will be dragging on the orb continuously over time, making it slow down, *not* making it come to a sudden stop. It could be gravity, pulling the orb down until it splashes against the ground (and then greater friction with the ground stops it), but that, too, is a continuous force. There's no force that suddenly appears to make it stop at an exact range limit -- unless magic is creating one. Anyway, you quoted mine "as any other object". So if that's nonsense, then tell me why. Because if you throw a mundane object at someone you get a range increment and Str bonus to damage, signifying that it is a physical thing that gets less accurate the longer distance you throw it and hits harder the more force you put behind it. It also takes a normal ranged attack roll rather than ranged touch, signifying it's actually a solid object that bounces off armor rather than magical "energy" that goes right through. The Orb spells don't act like this. They act in every way as Evocation magic like scorching ray, *not* as ordinary physical objects. They're Evocation spells misplaced in the Conjuration school and made way too powerful as a result. High enough science is indistinguishable from magic, ya know. Which is weasel language to obscure the fact that it *is* magic and should be treated as such in D&D. This is just like saying that an ordinary Maximized fireball should work in an AMF if I flavor the spell to say that it's generated by "nanotech thermal convection manipulators" and not "fire magic". It's stupid. And maybe it's just buffs caster's eye and mind to allow him do the trick? ...Then how is the caster making the Orb magically "detonate" and vanish when it reaches the end of its range? And why would he want to do such a thing? I'm not talking about the aiming. I'm talking about your ridiculous lame suggestion that the Orb is like a missile that "blows up" at the end of its range for some reason because it's "programmed" to do so. Not only would no one intentionally limit something's range like this, but there's no actual *mechanism* by which this can happen, not if it goes into an AMF where all magic is blocked. Ball does not work that way. Targeting fails and a ball isn't even created, simple as this. That's not true. Orb spells don't have a Target: line. If they did, they *definitely* wouldn't be able to shoot something in an AMF, because you can't target anything in an AMF with a spell. Orb spells have an Effect: line. They make an orb. The orb can *then*, as described in the spell desc, be thrown at a target with a ranged touch attack -- but if the ranged touch misses, the Orb was still made and still fired. But you cannot accept a burning ball of flammable materials to burn out and change into CO2 and a stuff? Why? But that's not what it says happens. And it doesn't *work* for things like an orb of "force", since we have no idea what force is and whether force naturally breaks down over time. (Since you can permanency a wall of force, it seems like force doesn't have any time limit on its existence except for the magic that keeps it running. Again, I emphasize, MAGIC.) Doesn't work for an "orb" of "sound" either. If it hits, no problem... If it misses, it may burn the ground under the target, it may evaporate, it may oxidize itself in an air ant turn into harmless liquid... There are many possibilities. The rules name none of these possibilities, and these create problems. I've asked you not to mix "possibility" discussion with rule discussion. Dude, I *know* how the rules work. I know that if you follow RAW that this is how the Orb spells work. THIS IS WHY I HATE THE ORB SPELLS. They don't make sense. I know how they're *supposed* to work -- how they work doesn't work with how real objects work or how magical objects work. You're basically saying that what's clearly a magic object doesn't follow the basic rules of magic objects -- that they disappear in AMFs -- because it's *not* magic, it's *real*, and that makes no sense. The D&D designers made this up to achieve a mechanical effect and threw out flavor in the process, and it was a mistake for them to do so. I've described what may happen with effects of the spell in discussion already, without breaking mass/energy preservation law and without having them last forever. By handwaving nonsensical things like the "orb of 'force' just 'evaporates' because that's what this theoretical nonexistent BS 'force' that might actually exist in real life does because I made it up". Throwing it is a magic moment. I never said it isn't. But it can fly without a magic, once thrown. WHY? Don't say the rules say so. I know that's what the rules say. The rules are stupid. Throwing with magic power, not physical one... What's the difference once it flies further without magic? That it has no range increment and has a basic line beyond which you can't throw it at all because magic has "range"? I've answered it already. Targetting problem and ball not created if you cannot target. Untrue. There is no rule about this. There is no rule about what I can target, for one thing. I can say "I fling the Orb through the air as hard as I can", since it's Effect: and not Target:, and it will simply disappear once it goes outside its range (in effect, it will have "targeted" the empty space of air at the edge of the sphere of air that counts as what's Close range for me). Read my previous post, and this one for my answer to your answer on the matter. If you will forget what I've answered and repeat already answered parts, the discussion will last indefinitely. I haven't forgotten what you answered; you're just wrong. It would be Evocation, if it was that way. It *is* Evocation, in its flavor and what its effect should logically be. By the rules it isn't. Because the rules are stupid. The designers are still trying to make the Blaster mage the end all and be all of what being a mage is, without realizing that Conjuration is already an incredibly powerful school without blasting spells and that Evocation is in contrast one of the *weakest* schools because it relies on blasting, so they've done this, which overpowers the Conjuration school yet again and breaks the point of AMF. I may as well say it's the magic that allows you to target and creates ball with initial velocity and predictable lifetime. You may as well say that fireball works in an antimagic field because it creates the glowing bead with initial velocity, predictable lifetime and predetermined detonation behavior. You may as well say that phantasmal killer works in an antimagic field because it creates the illusion outside the AMF and sends it in. You *could* say all these things, and probably would if they suddenly lost their minds and made phantasmal killer an Instantaneous Conjuration. I don't give a crap that you "didn't actually say these things". There's nothing particularly different about these dumb justifications from this dumb justification. You're basically saying that it's okay for the rules to blatantly change what it means for something to be "magical" because you can make up a justification for it afterwards. If that's what you really think -- that the Rules Can Do No Wrong because you can make up a half-assed explanation for it afterwards -- then fine, there's no argument here. If you think there should be *some* standards, then your attempts at justification are dumb. Differences are - I've described how it's possible, and it is consistent with spell's school. If the school will be changed in some errata or anything, Then the spell will work your way. I'm not contesting that "it's possible". You can make anything possible with a dumb justification. I'm not even contesting that by RAW, you're right about how it works. Of course it is. It's obvious what they were trying to do with the Orb spells. But the Orb spells are *stupid*. The RAW is *stupid*. This was a *bad idea*. There *should* be an errata to change it, but there probably won't be because they only errata things that are grievous balance problems that break the game, which this isn't. As I've said, I will not discuss the rules that should be, only the ones that are. I agree there is many problems within them, but that's WotC job to correct it globally, and DM's job at the table. I'm not one of them (at least currently), so I don't care too much. Then why are you involved in this debate? We ARE talking about how things should be. Of course WotC wanted the Orb spells to be spells that break every expectation about how magic should work so that Wizards can cheesily blow away anything with blasts of acid instead of actually figuring out how to use magic cleverly. We're saying that they shouldn't have done this, and that any good DM won't allow it.
ArcTan 03-18-07, 11:50 PM	I'm pretty sure that by RAW Iron Heart Surge would kill AMF because it works on anything that 'effects' you, not anything that 'targets' you. "Affecting" you is one of those things that has no clear definition within the RAW, and will lead to ridiculous stuff. Say an Epic spell blots out the sun. This makes it dark, and makes it so I can't see. Now I'm "affected" by the spell, and I can cancel the spell -- and bring the whole world back into light -- with an IHS. That's clearly nonsense.
runestar 03-19-07, 12:31 AM	Cust service has said that iron heart surge will end an AMF or epic spell effect. Whether you subscribe to that is up to you though...:P
ArcTan 03-19-07, 12:36 AM	Cust service has said that iron heart surge will end an AMF or epic spell effect. Whether you subscribe to that is up to you though...:P I can make a list of times CustServ has been wrong before. I think it's kind of obvious they're wrong now. If not, then this becomes a reason to ban Tome of Battle for balance reasons, because a 3rd-level spell/maneuver shouldn't be an infinite-caster-level dispel magic. And I'd hate to see that, because Tome of Battle seems to me to be an incredibly well-balanced D&D book aside from rulings people seem to insist on perversely misinterpreting.
Zenogias 03-19-07, 04:55 AM	Following the wake of the Orb of Acid concept, would that in turn mean that flinging a Warlock's Eldritch Blast with its Vitrolic Blast acid effect into an AMF be effective against the individual inside?
runestar 03-19-07, 07:04 AM	would that in turn mean that flinging a Warlock's Eldritch Blast with its Vitrolic Blast acid effect into an AMF be effective against the individual inside? Depends. Is vitrolic blast an instantaneous conjuration?:P
Tajl 03-26-07, 08:31 PM	It is in Antimagicfields description that it doesn't block instant conjurations The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.P But rules also say: http://boards1.wizards.com/leaving.php?destination=http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/psionicPowers.html You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.P and http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040727a On the other hand, some things that you can see through can block line of effect, such as a wall of force or an antimagic field. So even if orb's effect isn't affected by antimagic field you still can't target person in antimagic field because you don't have line of effect and "You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on"
ArcTan 03-27-07, 12:11 AM	It is in Antimagicfields description that it doesn't block instant conjurations But rules also say: http://boards1.wizards.com/leaving.php?destination=http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/psionicPowers.html and http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040727a So even if orb's effect isn't affected by antimagic field you still can't target person in antimagic field because you don't have line of effect and "You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on" I don't actually think this is true, because Orbs don't target a creature. Check out the spell stat block -- they have an Effect: line, not a Target: line. It's "Effect: One orb of acid", not "Target: One creature". In other words, you don't cast the spell on the creature. You cast a spell that makes a little orb, and then the orb has the magical property that you can propel it at things with a ranged touch attack. If the orb is defined as nonmagical, then it doesn't vanish in the AMF, just like if you use planar ally to call an Astral Deva and tell the Astral Deva to kill someone in an AMF, the Astral Deva doesn't disappear. The spell makes perfect internal logical sense for what it does. I just don't like what it does.
Tajl 03-27-07, 05:00 AM	In other words, you don't cast the spell on the creature. You cast a spell that makes a little orb, and then the orb has the magical property that you can propel it at things with a ranged touch attack. If the orb is defined as nonmagical, then it doesn't vanish in the AMF. It does have range "close", if it would just summon nonmagical ball of acid to casters hand then range would be personal and trowing it would have been descriped like in "Fire seeds" If spell description have range, it is range of the spell not range of the spells effect (Teleport->personal etc...) Psionic "Hail of Crystals" would be another case with its area effect....
magenificent 03-27-07, 07:30 AM	That article means nothing. The FACT remains that nothing in the spell description of AMF states or even so much as implies that it blocks LoE. Therefore it doesn't. Period. Attempting to argue otherwise with a single examplory sentence from a two and a half year old article (most likely written without any thought as to how that particular spell actualy works) is laughable. Skip did not create AMF after all, and is far from infallable. Anyone attempting to quote him as the definitive end-all oracle on the subject is misguided to say the least.
CelestialBarbarian 03-27-07, 07:41 AM	That article means nothing. The FACT remains that nothing in the spell description of AMF states or even so much as implies that it blocks LoE. Therefore it doesn't. Period. Attempting to argue otherwise with a single examplory sentence from a two and a half year old article (most likely written without any thought as to how that particular spell actualy works) is laughable. Skip did not create AMF after all, and is far from infallable. Anyone attempting to quote him as the definitive end-all oracle on the subject is misguided to say the least. Teenagers! So many of them can't make a point without insulting whomever disagrees with them. I can only hope that this kid grows out of it. Dictionaries do not contain, by the way, the word "examplory." They do contain a word "exemplary," although people rarely use it to mean what you want your fake word to mean.
runestar 03-27-07, 07:42 AM	So I take there is no consensus as of yet?:P
CelestialBarbarian 03-27-07, 07:57 AM	So I take there is no consensus as of yet?:P :rofl: Yes it looks like there isn't. Without reviewing the thead, I think that probably the folks who argue that by RAW an orb works in an AMF probably win on points. I think, however, that the people who argue the other side have the better position. Here's what I'd probably do: I'd say that the orb doesn't vanish in the AMF, but becomes non-magical, losing both its "energy" quality and its guidance system. It becomes an improvised weapon of undifferentiated matter, requiring the caster to make a ranged attack roll with a -4 non-proficiency penalty and a range increment of 10'. If it hits it does 1d3 points of damage. Has anyone put the question to The Sage? I wonder what he would say. It hardly seems likely that the creators of AMF meant for magical orbs to work in the AMF; making the orbs instantaneous conjurations, I suspect, created this unintended consquence.
magenificent 03-27-07, 08:01 AM	Teenagers! So many of them can't make a point without insulting whomever disagrees with them. I can only hope that this kid grows out of it. Dictionaries do not contain, by the way, the word "examplory." They do contain a word "exemplary," although people rarely use it to mean what you want your fake word to mean. Fair enough. BTW, I don't believe I "insulted" anyone. Although I may have offended them. :D The spelling error was an honest mistake. (embarrassing)
CelestialBarbarian 03-27-07, 08:08 AM	Fair enough. BTW, I don't believe I "insulted" anyone. Although i may have offended them. :D The spelling error was an honest mistake. (embarrassing) The use of "laughable" and "misguided at best," look like insults. You could have just said that you don't consider one old article by someone who didn't create the AMF spell to be strong evidence. :) The spelling errors only looks bad in conjunction with your emotional and insulting tone--especially when you called attention to the word by putting it in quotation marks. Everyone makes typos. It's only when you're being nasty that they really make you look bad. :P
runestar 03-27-07, 08:36 AM	I finally got round to emailing cust serv about this question. so we should know the ans within the next day or 2. I have had decent experiences with them, since their advice for me usually seems quite plausible. :) On a side note, it seems that "how does empower+maximize work?" is quite a popular question they receive...:P
CelestialBarbarian 03-27-07, 08:57 AM	I finally got round to emailing cust serv about this question. so we should know the ans within the next day or 2. I have had decent experiences with them, since their advice for me usually seems quite plausible. :) On a side note, it seems that "how does empower+maximize work?" is quite a popular question they receive...:P Alas they have a spotty reputation. They used to be pretty bad, and then improved a great deal, but their reputation hadn't caught up with their efforts to improve when they made the ruling that Ironheart Surge destroys an AMF, which has totally re-ruined their reputation. Mostly likely whichever way they rule, people on the other side will cite their poor reputation to dismiss it. :(
runestar 03-27-07, 10:24 AM	I have my reservations about the iron heart surge ruling from cust serv. Basically, is their ruling accurate as per the raw but potentially game breaking, or just plain wrong? These are 2 completely different things. If it is simply the former, and players are uncomfortable with their ruling because it offends their senses that ToB material can be used to such a ridiculous degree, then it is not really cust serv's fault, since their role is simply to interpret material, not judge if it is overpowered or not(same as the sage). However I read the entry of IHS as quoted on these boards, it does indeed seem capable of all these, and consistent with their earlier rulings, if you go by a RAW approach. If your dm is unhappy with this, he is always free to houserule otherwise. But this does not mean that cust serv is wrong to begin with. They do not write the rules, they merely interpret them. As such, they cannot be faulted for doing their job. The people who have argued against this tend to adopt a "what should have been" approach. This is what bugs me the most, ironically.:P Because it is as good as admitting that their interpretation of IHS is not that correct, yet they keep insisting otherwise...:confused:
CelestialBarbarian 03-27-07, 10:45 AM	I have my reservations about the iron heart surge ruling from cust serv. Basically, is their ruling accurate as per the raw but potentially game breaking, or just plain wrong? These are 2 completely different things. If it is simply the former, and players are uncomfortable with their ruling because it offends their senses that ToB material can be used to such a ridiculous degree, then it is not really cust serv's fault, since their role is simply to interpret material, not judge if it is overpowered or not(same as the sage). However I read the entry of IHS as quoted on these boards, it does indeed seem capable of all these, and consistent with their earlier rulings, if you go by a RAW approach. If your dm is unhappy with this, he is always free to houserule otherwise. But this does not mean that cust serv is wrong to begin with. They do not write the rules, they merely interpret them. As such, they cannot be faulted for doing their job. The people who have argued against this tend to adopt a "what should have been" approach. This is what bugs me the most, ironically.:P Because it is as good as admitting that their interpretation of IHS is not that correct, yet they keep insisting otherwise...:confused: I posted a question about Ironheart Surge after a DM who wants me to join his campaign suggested it as a way to deal with ending the frenzy of the frenzied berserker so that I could play one without threatening the other PCs. (They don't have a cleric, who could cast calm emotions, which is a serious problem for the campaign itself, according to a player in the group and the DM wouldn't let me use the simple expedient of Righteous Wrath.) The DM mentioned the Ironheart Surge "feat," and after I posted I learned that it's not a feat at all, but a maneuver that the character I wanted to build couldn't afford to get anyway. People posted on the thread to say how awesome they find IHS, and indeed everything in Tome of Battle, and then a fight ensured, completely irrelevant to my query, about whether the ToB material was grossly overpowered, appropriately-powered, or just grossly distorted by Customer Service into being grossly overpowered. As far as I could tell, it seemed that the persons who said Customer Service had grossly distorted Ironheart Surge and at least one other maneuver made the best arguments. They seemed to make a good case that Ironheart Surge did not under RAW affect an AMF at all, since the AMF isn't an effect on the character. So it seemed to me that those who argued that Customer Service had made a drastically poor ruling made the best arguments. What do you want to bet that the fight over ToB will now break out on this thread too? :P
Novabomb 03-27-07, 11:48 AM	I am saddened by the fact that it wasn't until the end of the second page that the true reason orb spells do not work in AMF's was revealed. From the SRD http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#aimingASpell "You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect." But I just looked at AMF again, I see no words mentioning the blocking of line of effect. I guess this is just another instance of the sage making a mistake. Let the orb spells ring.
Merestil Haye 03-27-07, 11:54 AM	The way I now interpret the Orbs is analagous to that of a missile weapon. The energy is the payload, but to carry it from the point it was created (the palm of the caster's hand) to the target requires a delivery system. That delivery system is the magic that (a) contains the energy and prevents it from being dispersed into the environment and (b) guides it to the selected target (in the archery sense of the word "target" not the normal D&D magic meaning). As soon as the path of the missile intersects the boundary of the AMF, the guidance system will wink out and the energy will dissipate harmlessly into the environment. As for not blocking line of effect, the first paragraph of the spell description suggests that it does just that.An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines."Impervious" suggests that magical effects cannot pass into or through it. This would include the delivery system of any and all of the Orbs.
OneWinged4ngel 03-27-07, 03:43 PM	So, if the Orb of Force is a Conjuration spell and the duration is instantaneous ("the spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast"), then after I throw it there is a round ball of force at the target's feet. This is true even if the target is in the middle of an antimagic field. The other questions I have with the orb spells are: If I am throwing it, why are there no range increments (other than that the spell description does not have any)? How does your average arcane caster throw one in excess of 170ft or so? If I miss can I pick it up and throw it back? If I hit can I pick it up and throw it back? How long will the force, ice, acid, etc stay? These are questions that need to be asked I think. The answer is pretty simple: The orb spells don't make complete sense. This is why lots of people don't like them.
CelestialBarbarian 03-27-07, 06:47 PM	The answer is pretty simple: The orb spells don't make complete sense. This is why lots of people don't like them. Agreed. I think the authors of Magic of Faerun created the orb spells in a slap-dash manner without giving much thought to the consquences because they superficially sounded cool.
runestar 03-27-07, 10:21 PM	I take back all the praise I had lobbed at cust serv earlier...things always seem to have a funny way of blowing up in my face whenever I shoot my mouth off...:bored: Here is their answer... Complete arcane has this line of orb spells which are from the conjuration school, and are able to eschew sr. Would they be able to hit someone in an AMF? AMF states that it does not block out instantaneous conjurations, and the orb spells are conjurations with a duration of instantaneous. Also, what about a globe of invulnerability? They block out 4th lv spells. The orbs are 4th lv spells. Will a glove of invul protect its caster from the orb spells or not? Thanks in advance for your help.:) ken, Complex rule interactions should always be, quite frankly, adjudicated by your Dungeon Master. However there are a few sources beyond the rule books that you and your Dungeon Master can use to determine the most usable and fun solution for your game. You may want to start by checking out our FAQ and errata documents online at our website. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rules Many players and Dungeon Masters also read and ask questions on our message boards and chat rooms to discover what other Dungeon Masters have done in similar situations. http://boards1.wizards.com/community_home.php Your Dungeon Master is ultimately responsible for deciding how he/she wants to handle any such issue however, and with all the tools currently available it should be relatively easy to adjudicate this matter fairly, as well as in the spirit of making the game as fun as it can be.
CelestialBarbarian 03-27-07, 10:51 PM	I take back all the praise I had lobbed at cust serv earlier...things always seem to have a funny way of blowing up in my face whenever I shoot my mouth off...:bored: Here is their answer... Do you retract your praise because they wouldn't give a definitive answer, or because they referred you to the FAQ, and you found that the FAQ didn't answer the question? I've actually had this sort of response before, at least so far as Customer Service saying that they had no answer. Have you tried mailing The Sage at Paizo? Maybe he will put the question in a forthcoming issue of Dragon.
runestar 03-27-07, 11:06 PM	I don't subscribe to dragon, so any ruling made there is pretty much inaccessible to me. And the few questions I emailed the sage at the wotc website never got addressed anyways. Do you retract your praise because they wouldn't give a definitive answer, or because they referred you to the FAQ, and you found that the FAQ didn't answer the question? Both actually. My few earlier queries(such as whether dragon paralysis protects it from 0 dex, how hydras make their AoOs, clarification on gaze attacks) were all answered decisively and plausibly. I was actually quite satisfied with the solutions they offered. Which came as a surprise initially, after hearing all the negative comments I did here...:P The ironic thing is that they advised me to seek the boards' help for resolving this conundrum:rolleyes: (though it would be somewhat unreasonable for them to identify the source of this question). But linking me to the general section on game rules and expecting me to ferret out the rules for myself? Not only is it akin to looking for a needle in a haystack, but I am sure the answer I am seeking is not contained within as well (if so, somehow should have pointed it out by now...)
CelestialBarbarian 03-27-07, 11:38 PM	I don't subscribe to dragon, so any ruling made there is pretty much inaccessible to me. And the few questions I emailed the sage at the wotc website never got addressed anyways. Both actually. My few earlier queries(such as whether dragon paralysis protects it from 0 dex, how hydras make their AoOs, clarification on gaze attacks) were all answered decisively and plausibly. I was actually quite satisfied with the solutions they offered. Which came as a surprise initially, after hearing all the negative comments I did here...:P The ironic thing is that they advised me to seek the boards' help for resolving this conundrum:rolleyes: (though it would be somewhat unreasonable for them to identify the source of this question). But linking me to the general section on game rules and expecting me to ferret out the rules for myself? Not only is it akin to looking for a needle in a haystack, but I am sure the answer I am seeking is not contained within as well (if so, somehow should have pointed it out by now...) I think the reference to the FAQ is bad on their part (unless the FAQ actually contains the answer--have you checked?). The reference to the boards isn't such a bad idea; if I've already posted to the boards I'll say so when I write to Customer Service, so I've never gotten than answer. Many if not all the of questions in the FAQ come from The Sage's column in Dragon. One can write to him at sageadvice@paizo.com. I have done so just now, sending the following message: Do the various orb spells work in an anti-magic field? We have been having a raging debate about this subject on the Wizards website discussion boards. Some people claim that since the anti-magic field text specifically allows instantanous conjurations to work, the orbs do work. Others claim that the orb loses its magic when it enters the anti-magic field and unlike, say, water conjured by an instantaneous conjuration, ceases to exist. The latter interpretation makes the most sense to me, but the former seems a more technically accurate reading of the rules as written. What do you say?
runestar 03-28-07, 12:39 AM	Could you ask about the globe of invul part as well? :) The faq does not cover any topics on AMF or orb spells, IIRC.:(
CelestialBarbarian 03-28-07, 01:05 AM	Could you ask about the globe of invul part as well? :) The faq does not cover any topics on AMF or orb spells, IIRC.:( I recently looked through the spells portion of the latest FAQ (from a few days ago) because Rob said that the effect of a ray of enfeeblement doesn't stack with itself (I never did find that) before realizing that I'd meant to say enervation rather than ray of enfeeblement anyway, and don't recall any orb questions, although I think I might have seen some amf questions, but then I wasn't looking for orb questions. What's the issue with globe of invulnerability? I don't see anything that says that it doesn't block instantaneous conjurations.
runestar 03-28-07, 01:20 AM	Does it not seem odd if an orb spell could bypass an AMF, but still get blocked out by a globe of invulnerability? I know I said that I believed it would work that way, but goodness, that sure required a major suspension of belief nonetheless...:P I am just interested to see what take the sage has on this, and how he plans on addressing the discrepancies.
CelestialBarbarian 03-28-07, 02:16 AM	Does it not seem odd if an orb spell could bypass an AMF, but still get blocked out by a globe of invulnerability? I know I said that I believed it would work that way, but goodness, that sure required a major suspension of belief nonetheless...:P I am just interested to see what take the sage has on this, and how he plans on addressing the discrepancies. Ok, I sent the following to The Sage under the title, "Orb Followup Question:" If it turns out that an antimagic field does not block a orb spell, does a globe of invulnerability still block an orb spell? There seems to be nothing in the rules to indicate that the globe wouldn't block an orb, but some on the boards argue that it strains credulity to think that a globe would block and orb spell while an antimagic field wouldn't. I think that the globe clearly blocks an orb spell. Edit: I meant to warn you that I have written to The Sage a few times before and he has never responded or put my question into his monthly column. Perhaps this time he will. :)
Merestil Haye 03-28-07, 07:34 AM	I recently looked through the spells portion of the latest FAQ (from a few days ago) because Rob said that the effect of a ray of enfeeblement doesn't stack with itself (I never did find that) before realizing that I'd meant to say enervation rather than ray of enfeeblement anyway, and don't recall any orb questions, although I think I might have seen some amf questions, but then I wasn't looking for orb questions.You do realise that the question on Ray of Enfeeblement stacking is answered not in the FAQ but in the PHB? It's the example used to clarify "Same effect more than once in different strengths" (page 172). As for enervation stacking, that depends on whether you consider it damage (in which case its cumulative) or a penalty (in which case only the stronger effect applies). There was a lively thread on one of the boards a little while back on shadow dragon breath weapons that evolved into that debate.
CelestialBarbarian 03-28-07, 07:51 AM	You do realise that the question on Ray of Enfeeblement stacking is answered not in the FAQ but in the PHB? It's the example used to clarify "Same effect more than once in different strengths" (page 172). Obviously not. I just accepted Rob Douglas' claim on my "Epic Minotaur" thread that the FAQ dealt with the issue of ray of enfeeblement stacking. Frankly I was never interested in ray of enfeeblement, and only mentioned it inadvertently when I'd meant enervation. As for enervation stacking, that depends on whether you consider it damage (in which case its cumulative) or a penalty (in which case only the stronger effect applies). There was a lively thread on one of the boards a little while back on shadow dragon breath weapons that evolved into that debate. Without looking for that thread, as I read envervation it doesn't deal damage, but negative levels that each produce a -1 penalty on just about everything. The -1 penalties from the same spell stack with each other. This differs from ray of enfeeblement, where you impose a penalty equal to 1d6 + (1/2 levels). So one ray of enfeeblement imposes one non-stacking penalty, while enervation can produce up to 4 stackable -1 penalties. So you could probably argue that the penalties from multiptle enervation spells continue to stack with each other, or that they stack only within each application of the spell because of the "Same Effect More Than Once in Different Strengths" rule on page 172 of PHB. Heck if I know which one the authors intended. I just know that in practice when the subject arose I allowed the penalties from multiple castings of enervation to stack. Was there anything even approaching a consensus on the shadow dragon thread?
Merestil Haye 03-28-07, 09:13 AM	Without looking for that thread, as I read envervation it doesn't deal damage, but negative levels that each produce a -1 penalty on just about everything. The -1 penalties from the same spell stack with each other. This differs from ray of enfeeblement, where you impose a penalty equal to 1d6 + (1/2 levels). So one ray of enfeeblement imposes one non-stacking penalty, while enervation can produce up to 4 stackable -1 penalties. So you could probably argue that the penalties from multiptle enervation spells continue to stack with each other, or that they stack only within each application of the spell because of the "Same Effect More Than Once in Different Strengths" rule on page 172 of PHB. Heck if I know which one the authors intended. I just know that in practice when the subject arose I allowed the penalties from multiple castings of enervation to stack. Was there anything even approaching a consensus on the shadow dragon thread?Not that I remember. I do recall my conclusion though - that negative levels are "damage" and not "penalties". In this context it means that multiple Enervations impose cumulative amounts of negative levels. I think we reach the same conclusion here.
CelestialBarbarian 03-28-07, 03:00 PM	Not that I remember. I do recall my conclusion though - that negative levels are "damage" and not "penalties". In this context it means that multiple Enervations impose cumulative amounts of negative levels. I think we reach the same conclusion here. I have to admit that although I've run the spell with multiple enervations stacking, looking at the spell as causing "damage" that imposes penalties rather than penalties seems a bit silly. :P
Merestil Haye 03-28-07, 03:43 PM	Dexterity damage effectively penalises armour class and other stuff. All ability damage penalises something associated with the ability. Negative levels do the same thing to the character level. Not at all illogical really.
CelestialBarbarian 03-28-07, 05:03 PM	Dexterity damage effectively penalises armour class and other stuff. All ability damage penalises something associated with the ability. Negative levels do the same thing to the character level. Not at all illogical really. Enervation actually imposes direct penalties. In any case we've already determined that ability score damage from multiple applications of the same spell doesn't stack.
OneWinged4ngel 03-28-07, 05:44 PM	Agreed. I think the authors of Magic of Faerun created the orb spells in a slap-dash manner without giving much thought to the consquences because they superficially sounded cool. About half that book seems like it was created in a slap-dash manner, if ya ask me. Then again, that's pretty typical for a lot of WotC books. *Shrug*
Merestil Haye 03-28-07, 06:03 PM	Enervation actually imposes direct penalties. In any case we've already determined that ability score damage from multiple applications of the same spell doesn't stack.No, we have not. We have established that penalties to ability scores from multiple castings of the same spell do not stack. That says nothing about damage, which explicitly is cumulative. If you get hit by three Poison spells, and fail the three saves, you have taken 3d110 Con damage, and are probably dead. Enervation does not impose direct penalties. It inflicts negative levels, and those are what impose the penalties. Really, read the spell.You point your finger and utter the incantation, releasing a black ray of crackling negative energy that suppresses the life force of any living creature it strikes. You must make a ranged touch attack to hit. If the attack succeeds, the subject gains 1d4 negative levels.The direct effect of Enervation is to inflict negative levels. The penalties are a side-effect of those levels. And negative levels from multiple Enervation spells are cumulative.
CelestialBarbarian 03-29-07, 12:07 AM	About half that book seems like it was created in a slap-dash manner, if ya ask me. Then again, that's pretty typical for a lot of WotC books. *Shrug* It did seem a little slap-dash, although not quite as not as much as the Forgotten Realms (which didn't even have a list of its own spells) and certainly not as much as the Epic Level Handbook--or the 3.5 ELH update packet! :eek:
CelestialBarbarian 03-29-07, 12:10 AM	No, we have not. We have established that penalties to ability scores from multiple castings of the same spell do not stack. That says nothing about damage, which explicitly is cumulative. If you get hit by three Poison spells, and fail the three saves, you have taken 3d110 Con damage, and are probably dead. Enervation does not impose direct penalties. It inflicts negative levels, and those are what impose the penalties. Really, read the spell.The direct effect of Enervation is to inflict negative levels. The penalties are a side-effect of those levels. And negative levels from multiple Enervation spells are cumulative. You know what? once I saw the annoying bold font, I stopped reading. If you can't discuss this calmly, I'm not going to discuss it with you at all.
magenificent 03-29-07, 04:50 AM	Enervation actually imposes direct penalties. Nope. It imposes negative levels which in turn impose penalties. Negative levels state that they stack. In any case we've already determined that ability score damage from multiple applications of the same spell doesn't stack. Nope again. Damage stacks; you're thinking of penalties inflicted by spells, which do not. Completely different. I believe this is what you're referring to: From the SRD Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells Penalties and damage are completely separate. An excellent example would be a wounding weapon, which deals Con damage. Are you honestly trying to tell everyone a wounding weapon doesn't stack? As well as what Meristal Haye said about poison. He's right.
Merestil Haye 03-29-07, 06:33 AM	You know what? once I saw the annoying bold font, I stopped reading. If you can't discuss this calmly, I'm not going to discuss it with you at all.I was perfectly calm, thank you. If you don't like the way I emphasise certain words and refuse to read or learn, then that's your choice. But to help you (and others), someone who puts a word in bold or italics is laying stress on that word and wants you to pay attention to it because it's significant. Posts on a message board are more akin to a lecture situation, with each of us taking turns to be the lecturer. (Or that student at the front of the class who asks all the awkward questions. I'm sure you know the type.) From time to time he emphasises certain words. That's all I'm doing. The internet equivalent of shouting is typing in all capitals. The only words that should be all capitals are acronyms, and anything else causes me to tune out instantly - because I don't like being shouted at any more than you do. You made a false statement in this post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11916220&postcount=90) - that we had established "damage does not stack". Frankly, that is pure nonsense and goes against not only everything I said in the thread, but also the rules. So, in my reply I laid great stress on the rebuttal. Because that word was important.