Consequences of Removing Antimagic Field [Archive] - Wizards Community

Consequences of Removing Antimagic Field [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
The_Cheeseman
03-17-07, 03:32 PM It is my opinion that spells such as antimagic field, which totally defeats a good 70% of abilities and attacks in the game, are an overall detriment to the health of the game. I also believe the same about spells such as Mordenkainen's disjunction (dispels everything, no check), true seeing (ignore all illusions and many transmutation effects, no save or check), freedom of movement (ignore all grapples and movement effects, no save), death ward (ignore all death effects, negative energy, and level drains, no save), and mind blank (ignore all mind-affecting effects, no save).

These spells each entirely negate vast numbers of special attacks and abilities, with no concern for the power of the effects creator. Boccob, god of magic, who is immune to the normal dispel magic spell, could have all his magical defenses dropped by a single Mordenkainen's disjunction spell cast by a 17th-level wizard (technically, a 1st-level commoner would do it, if said commoner had access to the spell). Doesn't that seem a bit unbalancing?

I am considering simply removing all effects that create blanket immunities, perhaps modifying them to grant large save bonuses, instead. Do any of you have thoughts on the implications of such a change? Have any of you tried such a thing in your games? I'd love to hear your opinions on this matter!
tarkin
03-17-07, 03:55 PM The true seeing problem is fairly handled by Non-detection.

Just follow the actual rules in the book, allowing Non-detection to block true seeing, on an succesfull caster check. Ignore the people that want you to House Rule that it does not work against true seeing (they argue that true seeing does not target the person affected by non-detection, so it can not be stopped)

------------------

Anti-Magic Field (as opposed to Aura) has the major disadvantage of only being castable by a high level caster.

Such a person is themselves HEAVILY disadvantaged by the fact that they can't use magic.

I do admit that Anti-Magic Aura, a 7th level spell you can cast on other people, is overpowered

--------------

Mord's Disjunction is supposed to be balanced by artifacts. Any reasonable person should not cast the spell if an artifact is around because of the fear that things far worse than death could happen to them.

But this is largely DM dependent. If your DM does not let people have artifacts and enforce the risks and also enforce the requirement that NPCS will be afraid of those risks, then it can become a problem.

------------------
The other spells you mentioned, Death Ward, Mind Blank, and Freedom of Movement are far more restrictive about what they do, and are generally fine in a game. Just make sure that your opponents have more than just a single attack mode such as Death spells, mind affecting spells, or grapple stuff.
Seeker95
03-17-07, 05:23 PM I agree with tarkin on all his points. Remove AMAura.

I do have one question though... how does true seeing negate a transmutation? So you can tell that the seven-headed hydra attacking you is really a half-elf. It still attacks like any other seven-headed hydra. Seeing what hit you doesn't change the fact that it hit you.
The_Cheeseman
03-17-07, 06:04 PM I was referring to transmutations whose main purpose is to disguise one's identity - a doppleganger, for example.

I cannot agree with artifacts being a balancing factor for Mord's disjunction. Artifacts are not supposed to be an assumed part of the game, they are plot devices primarily, and the fundamental rules should not be designed with the assumption that all high-level parties will be carrying a powerful artifact that they fear will be destroyed by the spell. Not to mention the fact that story elements, like angering a cosmic entity, make very poor mechanical balancing factors, as they are entirely campaign-dependent.

I have never heard of anybody using nondetection to negate true seeing, before. It does make an interesting foil, I'll have to try it on my players and see how they react.
Thiez
03-17-07, 06:16 PM They'll hammergun you.

At least, I would.
MerlintheTuna
03-17-07, 06:19 PM AMF's big issue can be solved through at least two methods. Extraordinary Spell Aim is a feat from Complete Adventurer that allows you to make a "hole" in an area spell after making a (fairly difficult) Spellcraft check and increasing the casting time to 1 full-round action. Alternatively, the Archmage's Mastery of Shaping ability (DMG) does the same thing, replacing the check and the increased casting time with the loss of a 6th level slot. Neither is a bad deal, and both avoid the problem of AMF causing a massive self-nerf.

I would advise dropping AMF and Disjunction, but not the others; I lump those two in with the Polymorph chain as game-breaking, in both the sense that they have huge payoffs and, more importantly, that their use can cause a session to grind to a halt.
HassanNinkin
03-17-07, 08:40 PM How about if instead of taking them out of the game, you simply disrupt the player's expectations of the spells.
When they enter an underground chamber and realize they've entered an Antimagic field and are confronted with enemies that can use ranged weapons from cover, the PC's will likely cast disjunction, at which point, the permanent teleportation circle they are standing on (which was only supressed by the field) will send them 5,000 feet underground into a cavern filled with molten lava and monsters born of lovecraft's worst nightmares.

I find that solution more entertaining than simply saying "I don't like these spells so I kill them."
:dancin:
Miss_Yersinia
03-17-07, 09:33 PM I find that solution more entertaining than simply saying "I don't like these spells so I kill them."
:dancin:
Or like: "I don't like these spells so I kill you, if you're using them, even if you don't know that I dislike 'em".

Aaand antimagic field is too often used by bad DMs to randomly nerf mages. Bleh, I won't miss it, if it goes away - in fact, you promote the use of more sane defence against magic, like using dispel magic, good counterspelling and so on.
Daosus
03-17-07, 09:47 PM http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/variantfewerabsolutes1.html

Take a look at that link, he seems to go along the same lines. Instead of removing those spells, why not just require a save/check/opposed roll?
The Simbul
03-18-07, 04:22 AM It is my opinion that spells such as antimagic field, which totally defeats a good 70% of abilities and attacks in the game, are an overall detriment to the health of the game. I also believe the same about spells such as Mordenkainen's disjunction (dispels everything, no check), true seeing (ignore all illusions and many transmutation effects, no save or check), freedom of movement (ignore all grapples and movement effects, no save), death ward (ignore all death effects, negative energy, and level drains, no save), and mind blank (ignore all mind-affecting effects, no save).

These spells each entirely negate vast numbers of special attacks and abilities, with no concern for the power of the effects creator. Boccob, god of magic, who is immune to the normal dispel magic spell, could have all his magical defenses dropped by a single Mordenkainen's disjunction spell cast by a 17th-level wizard (technically, a 1st-level commoner would do it, if said commoner had access to the spell). Doesn't that seem a bit unbalancing?

I am considering simply removing all effects that create blanket immunities, perhaps modifying them to grant large save bonuses, instead. Do any of you have thoughts on the implications of such a change? Have any of you tried such a thing in your games? I'd love to hear your opinions on this matter!You had me in 100% agreement with the opening sentence, then lost me after true seeing.

The difference between antimagic field and spells like true seeing, freedom of movement, deathward, and mindblank is that they can be dispelled, whereas antimagic field cannot. Not every 20th level spellcaster can afford to cast 4-5 castings of Mordenkainen's disjunction to bring down one 6th level spell, nor do they possess 1/hour abilities like Silver Fire, a divine rank of 0 or greater, or have an artifact in their backpack. Therefore, antimagic field is a spell that has no equivalently common or accessible countermeasure.

By contrast, every pure caster class in the PHB has access to dispel magic, which can put an end to any liberal use of deathward, true seeing, freedom of movement, and mindblank.

If deathward was banned then you would see endless, multiple threads popping up every day decrying the use of [death] descriptor spells, and arguing for them to be banned outright.

If mindblank was removed, then you would have people decrying discern location (coupled with a greater teleport), otto's irresistible dance, and the power word spell chain as overpowered and in need of removal or tweaking.

Meanwhile everyone would be exploiting shapechange or polymorph any object spells to give them the traits of an undead, construct, or other creature just to avoid necromancy, enchantment, and roughly half of the illusion school.

Antimagic field is ban-worthy because it serves little to no purpose in the game, given that the only people who can actually cast it are entirely dependent on their spells and magical abilities to survive or be effective, and because every class in the game needs to utilize magic in some form for success. It is also ban worthy because, unlike every other spell listed here, it has no standard, worthwhile, or viable countermeasures to consistently bring it down...namely dispel magic.
The_Cheeseman
03-18-07, 05:28 PM I see that many can agree with some of the ideas I present, though most do not take such an extreme stance. I can aprpeciate that - moderation in all things, after all. I appreciate the feedback!

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The_Cheeseman 03-17-07, 03:32 PM	It is my opinion that spells such as antimagic field, which totally defeats a good 70% of abilities and attacks in the game, are an overall detriment to the health of the game. I also believe the same about spells such as Mordenkainen's disjunction (dispels everything, no check), true seeing (ignore all illusions and many transmutation effects, no save or check), freedom of movement (ignore all grapples and movement effects, no save), death ward (ignore all death effects, negative energy, and level drains, no save), and mind blank (ignore all mind-affecting effects, no save). These spells each entirely negate vast numbers of special attacks and abilities, with no concern for the power of the effects creator. Boccob, god of magic, who is immune to the normal dispel magic spell, could have all his magical defenses dropped by a single Mordenkainen's disjunction spell cast by a 17th-level wizard (technically, a 1st-level commoner would do it, if said commoner had access to the spell). Doesn't that seem a bit unbalancing? I am considering simply removing all effects that create blanket immunities, perhaps modifying them to grant large save bonuses, instead. Do any of you have thoughts on the implications of such a change? Have any of you tried such a thing in your games? I'd love to hear your opinions on this matter!
tarkin 03-17-07, 03:55 PM	The true seeing problem is fairly handled by Non-detection. Just follow the actual rules in the book, allowing Non-detection to block true seeing, on an succesfull caster check. Ignore the people that want you to House Rule that it does not work against true seeing (they argue that true seeing does not target the person affected by non-detection, so it can not be stopped) ------------------ Anti-Magic Field (as opposed to Aura) has the major disadvantage of only being castable by a high level caster. Such a person is themselves HEAVILY disadvantaged by the fact that they can't use magic. I do admit that Anti-Magic Aura, a 7th level spell you can cast on other people, is overpowered -------------- Mord's Disjunction is supposed to be balanced by artifacts. Any reasonable person should not cast the spell if an artifact is around because of the fear that things far worse than death could happen to them. But this is largely DM dependent. If your DM does not let people have artifacts and enforce the risks and also enforce the requirement that NPCS will be afraid of those risks, then it can become a problem. ------------------ The other spells you mentioned, Death Ward, Mind Blank, and Freedom of Movement are far more restrictive about what they do, and are generally fine in a game. Just make sure that your opponents have more than just a single attack mode such as Death spells, mind affecting spells, or grapple stuff.
Seeker95 03-17-07, 05:23 PM	I agree with tarkin on all his points. Remove AMAura. I do have one question though... how does true seeing negate a transmutation? So you can tell that the seven-headed hydra attacking you is really a half-elf. It still attacks like any other seven-headed hydra. Seeing what hit you doesn't change the fact that it hit you.
The_Cheeseman 03-17-07, 06:04 PM	I was referring to transmutations whose main purpose is to disguise one's identity - a doppleganger, for example. I cannot agree with artifacts being a balancing factor for Mord's disjunction. Artifacts are not supposed to be an assumed part of the game, they are plot devices primarily, and the fundamental rules should not be designed with the assumption that all high-level parties will be carrying a powerful artifact that they fear will be destroyed by the spell. Not to mention the fact that story elements, like angering a cosmic entity, make very poor mechanical balancing factors, as they are entirely campaign-dependent. I have never heard of anybody using nondetection to negate true seeing, before. It does make an interesting foil, I'll have to try it on my players and see how they react.
Thiez 03-17-07, 06:16 PM	They'll hammergun you. At least, I would.
MerlintheTuna 03-17-07, 06:19 PM	AMF's big issue can be solved through at least two methods. Extraordinary Spell Aim is a feat from Complete Adventurer that allows you to make a "hole" in an area spell after making a (fairly difficult) Spellcraft check and increasing the casting time to 1 full-round action. Alternatively, the Archmage's Mastery of Shaping ability (DMG) does the same thing, replacing the check and the increased casting time with the loss of a 6th level slot. Neither is a bad deal, and both avoid the problem of AMF causing a massive self-nerf. I would advise dropping AMF and Disjunction, but not the others; I lump those two in with the Polymorph chain as game-breaking, in both the sense that they have huge payoffs and, more importantly, that their use can cause a session to grind to a halt.
HassanNinkin 03-17-07, 08:40 PM	How about if instead of taking them out of the game, you simply disrupt the player's expectations of the spells. When they enter an underground chamber and realize they've entered an Antimagic field and are confronted with enemies that can use ranged weapons from cover, the PC's will likely cast disjunction, at which point, the permanent teleportation circle they are standing on (which was only supressed by the field) will send them 5,000 feet underground into a cavern filled with molten lava and monsters born of lovecraft's worst nightmares. I find that solution more entertaining than simply saying "I don't like these spells so I kill them." :dancin:
Miss_Yersinia 03-17-07, 09:33 PM	I find that solution more entertaining than simply saying "I don't like these spells so I kill them." :dancin: Or like: "I don't like these spells so I kill you, if you're using them, even if you don't know that I dislike 'em". Aaand antimagic field is too often used by bad DMs to randomly nerf mages. Bleh, I won't miss it, if it goes away - in fact, you promote the use of more sane defence against magic, like using dispel magic, good counterspelling and so on.
Daosus 03-17-07, 09:47 PM	http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/variantfewerabsolutes1.html Take a look at that link, he seems to go along the same lines. Instead of removing those spells, why not just require a save/check/opposed roll?
The Simbul 03-18-07, 04:22 AM	It is my opinion that spells such as antimagic field, which totally defeats a good 70% of abilities and attacks in the game, are an overall detriment to the health of the game. I also believe the same about spells such as Mordenkainen's disjunction (dispels everything, no check), true seeing (ignore all illusions and many transmutation effects, no save or check), freedom of movement (ignore all grapples and movement effects, no save), death ward (ignore all death effects, negative energy, and level drains, no save), and mind blank (ignore all mind-affecting effects, no save). These spells each entirely negate vast numbers of special attacks and abilities, with no concern for the power of the effects creator. Boccob, god of magic, who is immune to the normal dispel magic spell, could have all his magical defenses dropped by a single Mordenkainen's disjunction spell cast by a 17th-level wizard (technically, a 1st-level commoner would do it, if said commoner had access to the spell). Doesn't that seem a bit unbalancing? I am considering simply removing all effects that create blanket immunities, perhaps modifying them to grant large save bonuses, instead. Do any of you have thoughts on the implications of such a change? Have any of you tried such a thing in your games? I'd love to hear your opinions on this matter!You had me in 100% agreement with the opening sentence, then lost me after true seeing. The difference between antimagic field and spells like true seeing, freedom of movement, deathward, and mindblank is that they can be dispelled, whereas antimagic field cannot. Not every 20th level spellcaster can afford to cast 4-5 castings of Mordenkainen's disjunction to bring down one 6th level spell, nor do they possess 1/hour abilities like Silver Fire, a divine rank of 0 or greater, or have an artifact in their backpack. Therefore, antimagic field is a spell that has no equivalently common or accessible countermeasure. By contrast, every pure caster class in the PHB has access to dispel magic, which can put an end to any liberal use of deathward, true seeing, freedom of movement, and mindblank. If deathward was banned then you would see endless, multiple threads popping up every day decrying the use of [death] descriptor spells, and arguing for them to be banned outright. If mindblank was removed, then you would have people decrying discern location (coupled with a greater teleport), otto's irresistible dance, and the power word spell chain as overpowered and in need of removal or tweaking. Meanwhile everyone would be exploiting shapechange or polymorph any object spells to give them the traits of an undead, construct, or other creature just to avoid necromancy, enchantment, and roughly half of the illusion school. Antimagic field is ban-worthy because it serves little to no purpose in the game, given that the only people who can actually cast it are entirely dependent on their spells and magical abilities to survive or be effective, and because every class in the game needs to utilize magic in some form for success. It is also ban worthy because, unlike every other spell listed here, it has no standard, worthwhile, or viable countermeasures to consistently bring it down...namely dispel magic.
The_Cheeseman 03-18-07, 05:28 PM	I see that many can agree with some of the ideas I present, though most do not take such an extreme stance. I can aprpeciate that - moderation in all things, after all. I appreciate the feedback!