PDA

View Full Version : Forcecage and AMF.



Zeful
2009-01-28, 11:44 PM
I'm just wondering where in Forcecage's (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/forcecage.htm) description it get's its supposed immunity to Antimagic Field (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm)? I'm not seeing it.

Wyvern_55
2009-01-28, 11:56 PM
Wall of force has a specific exception in it about antimagic fields, but Force cage does not.

Some people consider Force cage to also be immune to it, citing that force cage is just a whole bunch of walls of force, but again, it doesn't actually state anywhere that Force Cage is immune to Antimagic Fields.

Personally, I kind of like having nothing work in an antimagic field, so that's how they work at my table, but that's just me.

olentu
2009-01-28, 11:56 PM
Well while there are several parts the most pertinent are probably

"Barred Cage: This version of the spell produces a 20-foot cube made of bands of force (similar to a wall of force spell) for bars."

"Windowless Cell: This version of the spell produces a 10-foot cube with no way in and no way out. Solid walls of force form its six sides."

So as the bold parts show both versions of the cage are made of something like a wall of force and a wall of force resists an antimagic field.

Although technically while the cell version is made of walls of force the barred version is only made of bands similar to a wall of force spell.

Raum
2009-01-28, 11:57 PM
I'm just wondering where in Forcecage's (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/forcecage.htm) description it get's its supposed immunity to Antimagic Field (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm)? I'm not seeing it.Forcecage's description says it's "like Wall of Force (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfForce.htm)". Consequently, this statement applies:
...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.It's generally interpreted to mean only the spells listed in the "However..." sentence can affect it.

The Antimagic spell also states "Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions). Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this. "

MCerberus
2009-01-29, 12:03 AM
The problem is "like" is a very vague word. Fireball is *like* flaming sphere. There's roundness and fire and no bludgeoning damage. There's no disambiguation on how alike these two spells are. It could mean anything from "shaped wall of force" to "they're invisible barriers".

Plus in the errata they make no mention of AMF not suppressing this spell.

Zeful
2009-01-29, 12:03 AM
Except that statement continues with the use of commas which serve to identify how Forcecage is like a wall of force.
Like a wall of force spell, a forcecage resists dispel magic, but it is vulnerable to a disintegrate spell, and it can be destroyed by a sphere of annihilation or a rod of cancellation. With the lack of a qualifier similar to Antimagic Field's "such as", the sentence is a list of properties that Forcecage shares with Wall of Force. Immunity to AMF is not included.

Eldariel
2009-01-29, 12:53 AM
The windowless version of Forcecage specifically states it's built of Walls of Force though, so pretty much check Wall of Force for its stats. The barred cage is up to DM interpretion though as it's only similar to Wall of Force.

Zeful
2009-01-29, 01:23 AM
The windowless version of Forcecage specifically states it's built of Walls of Force though, so pretty much check Wall of Force for its stats. The barred cage is up to DM interpretion though as it's only similar to Wall of Force.

er... it mentions that solid walls of force make the six sides, but if they were actually referencing the spell the line would have to read. "Solid walls of force (as the spell) form its six sides." which is the format every spell that references another spell uses. Because forcecage doesn't have that parenthetical clarification, it's not walls of force the spell it's walls of force the descriptive statement.

Neek
2009-01-29, 02:04 AM
1). The lawyering of forcecage seems a tad bit nick-picky; the spell doesn't state directly that it is immune to an antimagic field, so the emanation of antimagic field should directly absolve its effects.

2). Forcecage references directly to the spell wall of force twice: Once to state that it resists dispel magic, and again to state that the walls of a barred forcecage are similar to a wall of force--which means the property of the sides are the same, but it's not the same spell. The windowless forcecage just states that "walls of force form its six sides." This is a descriptive sentence, not a reference to wall of force.

To further the point, the SRD explicitly states regarding Antimagic Fields (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#antimagic), "Wall of force, prismatic wall, and prismatic sphere are not affected by antimagic. Break enchantment, dispel magic, and greater dispel magic spells do not dispel antimagic." Please appreciate that it does not state Forcecage.

turkishproverb
2009-01-29, 02:15 AM
Forcecage's description says it's "like Wall of Force (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfForce.htm)". Consequently, this statement applies:It's generally interpreted to mean only the spells listed in the "However..." sentence can affect it.[/i]

Or it can be interpreted to mean the specific similarities stated after the comma. Comma, not a period, as in the punctuation mark that denotes continuing qualifiers to a statement.

As illustrated when this was posted (emphasis added)


Like a wall of force spell, a forcecage resists dispel magic, but it is vulnerable to a disintegrate spell, and it can be destroyed by a sphere of annihilation or a rod of cancellation.

Had there been a period, I might side with you. However, there is very much not, so RAW doesn't side with you.

olentu
2009-01-29, 02:57 AM
er... it mentions that solid walls of force make the six sides, but if they were actually referencing the spell the line would have to read. "Solid walls of force (as the spell) form its six sides." which is the format every spell that references another spell uses. Because forcecage doesn't have that parenthetical clarification, it's not walls of force the spell it's walls of force the descriptive statement.

I will note that technically an antimagic field says that "An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area". However I am able to find a definition of suppresses that is as follows "To reduce the incidence or severity of". And thus it could be argued that an antimagic field only reduces the material component cost of the forcecage spell since the cost of 1,500 GP could be considered severe.

And thus it is almost impossible to say with certainty what any spell does because it is impossible to say what meaning to use with any word that might have multiple meanings unless it is defined specifically in the rules.

Note that the definition of functioning I am using in "Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines" is the following "performing or able to perform its regular function" which the spell is not doing if it is not causing 1,500 GP of ruby dust to be consumed as a material component.

Well I have just realized that perhaps I have not clearly stated what I mean by the above. What I mean is that while both definitions could be correct neither can be proven and so quoting the spell description and then stating what the terms used there mean will not help since the rules as they are written are very imprecise and as such it is impossible to say how many things work since which use of a word or words are not specified.

Fiery Diamond
2009-01-29, 03:06 AM
The really weird part is that although Antimagic Field says that Wall of Force is unaffected, Wall of Force description does not. Instead, it only says the same things that Forcecage says when describing the similarities between itself and Wall of Force. To me, that just makes things even more confusing.

If WoF said that it was immune to AF but Forcecage didn't, then I would say the issue was clear-cut: Forcecage isn't immune. However, neither one of them says they are immune - only AF says that WoF is immune, and both of the other spells have the same description for Dispel magic not working and listing of what does work. As a DM, I would rule that Forcecage was immune, but I don't have a problem with it being decided otherwise, especially for the telling of the story in OoTS, which is what started this conversation.

Zen Master
2009-01-29, 05:47 AM
It is worth noting that there are a great many force effects in the books, and to my knowledge, the ONLY one that resists anti magic is wall of force.

Thus, it is not a property of force to be undispellable.

I really think force cage is more than powerful enough. To me, it's a much more relevant question to ponder whether wall of force sould really be impervious to anti magic field.

Edited for clarity.

Tokiko Mima
2009-01-29, 06:25 AM
The confusing double speak that is the Antimagic Shell description ultimately means it's DM fiat anyway. I could make a stong argument about how one could teleport into and out of an antimagic shell or fire orbs through it (instantaneous conjurations are immune to AMF), or how you can create magic wielding monsters that are immune to the effects of an antimagic shell using the clause of summoned creatures with SR. Everyone has their own opinion of how antimagic should work, but it was never really clearly defined.

I can see the side of people who say that forcecage is made of walls of force, and should therefore be immune to antimagic shell. And on the other hand the antimagic purists who find it silly that any thing obviously magical can survive in an area absolutely opposed to magic of any kind also make a valid observation. There's debate points on both sides, which is why this kind of question ends up being DM fiat. Antimagic is nebulously defined in RAW.

Aquillion
2009-01-29, 06:27 AM
I really think force cage is more than powerful enough. To me, it's a much more relevant question to ponder whether wall of force sould really be impervious to anti magic field.Forcecage has a 1500 gp material component; people always forget that part. Not out of the range of players to throw around by the time they get it, no, but it's still not money you want to waste when you have so many other ways to resolve encounters for free, and it's certainly not something players are going to want to use regularly when other options exist. It falls under Awesome But Impractical (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AwesomeButImpractical), or at best as an emergency panic button rather than an all-purpose win-button.

Also note that (like many spells with a significant cost that are not strictly necessary the way Identify or Raise Dead are) as a practical matter players are probably more likely to be the victim of forcecage than the ones throwing it around.

Anyway, I think it's a DM call.

Michaelos
2009-01-29, 07:55 AM
Hmm.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/prismaticWall.htm

"Dispel magic and greater dispel magic cannot dispel the wall or anything beyond it."

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfForce.htm
"The wall cannot move, it is immune to damage of all kinds, and it is unaffected by most spells, including dispel magic."

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/forcecage.htm
"Like a wall of force spell, a forcecage resists dispel magic, but it is vulnerable to a disintegrate spell, and it can be destroyed by a sphere of annihilation or a rod of cancellation."

Depending on how you read this, Does Greater Dispel Magic break either of the Force affects? Prismatic Wall specifically exempts both, but Wall of Force and Forcecage only stop Dispel Magic. Although Greater Dispel Magic is like Dispel Magic in almost every way. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelmagicgreater.htm

Curmudgeon
2009-01-29, 08:10 AM
My take is that "similar to a wall of force spell" doesn't imply all the same properties (for the barred cage version), but a blatant reference to the spell in "Solid walls of force form its six sides." (for the windowless cell version) does. So Antimagic Field will work on the former, but not on the latter.

Starbuck_II
2009-01-29, 10:03 AM
I'd like to enter Ring of Force Shield.
It says it is a Wall of Force (not like a Wall of Force).

So the ring can't be shut down by dispel or AMF?

Zeful
2009-01-29, 11:20 AM
I'd like to enter Ring of Force Shield.
It says it is a Wall of Force (not like a Wall of Force).

So the ring can't be shut down by dispel or AMF?

As the ring of force shield (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#forceShield) is a magic item it can still have it's functions suppressed, however the shaped wall of force it creates could not be dispelled or suppressed except through deactivation of the ring. Which brings up an interesting point. You activate a Ring of Force Shield, walk into a AMF, the wall will stay, as per AMF's text, but the ring will be suppressed, so you lose the ability to turn off the shield?

AKA_Bait
2009-01-29, 12:24 PM
As the ring of force shield (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#forceShield) is a magic item it can still have it's functions suppressed, however the shaped wall of force it creates could not be dispelled or suppressed except through deactivation of the ring. Which brings up an interesting point. You activate a Ring of Force Shield, walk into a AMF, the wall will stay, as per AMF's text, but the ring will be suppressed, so you lose the ability to turn off the shield?

No, the moment ring the entered the AMF the effect caused by the would be suppressed and the wall would dissapear. It's like a house of cards, the ring generates the effect and the ring is not immune to AMF. A naturally created wall of force would be. For example, you could not cast wall of force inside an AMF, as such, the rings effect can't generate or maintain one.

Starbuck_II
2009-01-29, 12:31 PM
No, the moment ring the entered the AMF the effect caused by the would be suppressed and the wall would dissapear. It's like a house of cards, the ring generates the effect and the ring is not immune to AMF. A naturally created wall of force would be. For example, you could not cast wall of force inside an AMF, as such, the rings effect can't generate or maintain one.

But Wall of Force says it can't be stopped by AMF. So that should take precedent, no?

And the Ring doesn't repeatily cast Wall inside: it cast it prior and so AMF can't stop it.

monty
2009-01-29, 01:04 PM
No, the moment ring the entered the AMF the effect caused by the would be suppressed and the wall would dissapear. It's like a house of cards, the ring generates the effect and the ring is not immune to AMF. A naturally created wall of force would be. For example, you could not cast wall of force inside an AMF, as such, the rings effect can't generate or maintain one.

Antimagic field requires line of effect. Wall of force blocks line of effect. As long as you keep the wall between the ring and the center of the AMF, problem solved.

Limos
2009-01-29, 02:12 PM
I think the important part is the line

Like a wall of force spell, a forcecage resists dispel magic,

That line only says that it shares ONE and only ONE explicitely stated similarity with Wall of Force. That ONE similarity is that it resists being dispelled. If it said that it shared ALL the characteristics of a Wall of force, then it would be immune to AMF. Since it only states one thing that is shared you can only assume that the one thing is shared. You can't just assign more properties to it.

Frankly I've always houseruled that an AMF means no magic at all. Only extrodinary abilities can work inside it. All magic brought inside is surpressed. Enchantments stop functioning. Anything made out of magic (like something made with Prestidigitation) is destroyed.

Since a Forcecage is basically a bunch of solidified magic I would say that it doesn't function in an AMF. And really WoF shouldn't function inside either.

Zeful
2009-01-29, 02:19 PM
Antimagic field requires line of effect. Wall of force blocks line of effect. As long as you keep the wall between the ring and the center of the AMF, problem solved.

It blocks line of effect for pretty much everything but gaze attacks.

I'm aware that has little bearing on your statement.

Dacia Brabant
2009-01-29, 03:28 PM
I think the "similar to a wall of force spell" phrase is referring to the cage being made out of the same, er, substance but shaped differently--horizontal and vertical bars with gaps in between instead of solid walls--so in all respects except for that it probably should be treated as a wall of force. They don't need to list every single attribute and immunity of a wall of force since they link to the spell in the description.

But we all know this is really about the black dragon V is fighting, and in the comic the rules are always secondary to the plot. Besides, it wouldn't be the first time that Forcecage was foiled in the comic by something outside of RAW.

Zeful
2009-01-29, 03:46 PM
I think the "similar to a wall of force spell" phrase is referring to the cage being made out of the same, er, substance but shaped differently--horizontal and vertical bars with gaps in between instead of solid walls--so in all respects except for that it probably should be treated as a wall of force. They don't need to list every single attribute and immunity of a wall of force since they link to the spell in the description.Actually the "similar to a Wall of Force spell" in the barred cage version of the spell is used as an explanation of how it interacts with incorporeal and ethereal, as everything else is either negated (shape) or already applied to the spell (dispel resistance, effects of disintegration and etc.) in another line. Nothing in the text of Forcecage, or in the borrowed effects from Wall of Force, allows it to apply to this line:
Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions).



But we all know this is really about the black dragon V is fighting, and in the comic the rules are always secondary to the plot. Besides, it wouldn't be the first time that Forcecage was foiled in the comic by something outside of RAW.:smallconfused:I didn't bring up the comic, this is a rules discussion.
Beyond that, my point is there is nothing in the RAW explicitly granting Forcecage AMF immunity.

monty
2009-01-29, 03:50 PM
Besides, it wouldn't be the first time that Forcecage was foiled in the comic by something outside of RAW.

Forcecage != Xykon's Moderately Escapable Forcecage.

olentu
2009-01-29, 06:51 PM
I would at the moment rule that it seems that the windowless version is immune while the bars version is debatable but I would rule that it is immune since I can see no reason why that trait should be removed any more then any of the other traits.

However I think the real question is does an antimagic field keep itself from working since it says that "it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines." But antimagic field also says "An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area" so on the one hand an antimagic field can be considered to be used within its own area by the caster to stop other magic from functioning, but on the other hand since the antimagic field is not brought or cast into its own area it might not stop itself. However if that train of thought is taken then any spell that would be within the area of an antimagic field when it is created is also not stopped since it is not brought or cast within the area and apparently used would only mean active use not passively existing. And that is at odds with the fact that summoned creatures wink out if an antimagic field is cast on the area they occupy. However that might just be a specific exception for summoned creatures. And while "Two or more antimagic fields sharing any of the same space have no effect on each other" the list of spells that are immune to an antimagic field does not contain the spell antimagic field. So it would seem that there is nothing explicitly stating that an antimagic field does not cancel itself.

Zeful
2009-01-29, 07:30 PM
I would at the moment rule that it seems that the windowless version is immune while the bars version is debatable but I would rule that it is immune since I can see no reason why that trait should be removed any more then any of the other traits.Can you explain your reasoning?


However if that train of thought is taken then any spell that would be within the area of an antimagic field when it is created is also not stopped since it is not brought or cast within the area and apparently used would only mean active use not passively existing.Depends on the definition of "bring" used. Since brought is both the past tense and present participle of bring, we use it's definition for our purposes.

Let's see what dictionary.references.com has to say about bringbring
   /brɪŋ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bring] Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), brought, bring⋅ing.
1. to carry, convey, conduct, or cause (someone or something) to come with, to, or toward the speaker: Bring the suitcase to my house. He brought his brother to my office.
2. to cause to come to or toward oneself; attract: Her scream brought the police. He brought honor to his family by his heroism.
3. to cause to occur or exist: The medication brought instant relief.
4. to cause to come into a particular position, state, or effect: to bring the car to a stop.
5. to cause to appear or occur in the mind; evoke or recall: The letter brought her memories of youth.
6. to persuade, convince, compel, or induce: She couldn't bring herself to sell the painting.
7. to sell for; fetch: These lamps will bring a good price.
8. Law. to commence: to bring an action for damages.
The first and third ones seems to be relevant to the discussion at hand. The caster of the AMF caused the effect. The other spells occur or exist within the confines of the spell and thus are brought into the spell's area of effect.


And that is at odds with the fact that summoned creatures wink out if an antimagic field is cast on the area they occupy. However that might just be a specific exception for summoned creatures. And while "Two or more antimagic fields sharing any of the same space have no effect on each other" the list of spells that are immune to an antimagic field does not contain the spell antimagic field. So it would seem that there is nothing explicitly stating that an antimagic field does not cancel itself.Not to doubt your reading comprehension or anything but you are aware that AMF's "Two or more Antimagic Fields shareing the same space have no effect on each other." Falls under the "(see individual spell description)" clause?

olentu
2009-01-29, 11:42 PM
Can you explain your reasoning?

Well my reasoning is that I prefer not to have to make up all of the stats of the sides of the forcecage, decide if they are indestructable, if not then what is their hardness and hp per inch, how thick they are, if you touch them to you take 38d6 subdual force damage, etc.


Depends on the definition of "bring" used. Since brought is both the past tense and present participle of bring, we use it's definition for our purposes.

Let's see what dictionary.references.com has to say about bringbring
   /brɪŋ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bring] Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), brought, bring⋅ing.
1. to carry, convey, conduct, or cause (someone or something) to come with, to, or toward the speaker: Bring the suitcase to my house. He brought his brother to my office.
2. to cause to come to or toward oneself; attract: Her scream brought the police. He brought honor to his family by his heroism.
3. to cause to occur or exist: The medication brought instant relief.
4. to cause to come into a particular position, state, or effect: to bring the car to a stop.
5. to cause to appear or occur in the mind; evoke or recall: The letter brought her memories of youth.
6. to persuade, convince, compel, or induce: She couldn't bring herself to sell the painting.
7. to sell for; fetch: These lamps will bring a good price.
8. Law. to commence: to bring an action for damages.
The first and third ones seems to be relevant to the discussion at hand. The caster of the AMF caused the effect. The other spells occur or exist within the confines of the spell and thus are brought into the spell's area of effect.

Well there are various definitions but I find that the sentence ,An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, to have caused to occur or exist into, or cast into the area, to not make so much sense. I can make some sense of it but not as much as other definitions.

And in any case, if taking your interpertation then by creating the antimagic field the caster causes the antimagic field to occur or exist within its own area and thus can be said to have brought the antimagic field into its own area as much as the spells that were covered by the area of the field when it is created.

And this means that now unlike my original assertion the antimagic field can be considered to be brought into the area and thus there is another way in which an antimagic field qualifies for canceling itself.


Not to doubt your reading comprehension or anything but you are aware that AMF's "Two or more Antimagic Fields shareing the same space have no effect on each other." Falls under the "(see individual spell description)" clause?

Well since the spell does not create two antimagic fields the sentence "Two or more Antimagic Fields shareing the same space have no effect on each other." does not matter since we are only dealing with one. And thus while this does fall under the "(see individual spell description)" clause it only applies when there are "Two or more Antimagic Fields".

So in the end similar to the spell forcecage, antimagic field has sections that can be interpreted to imply that a field does not cancel itself there is nothing explicitly stated.

Dacia Brabant
2009-01-30, 12:14 AM
Actually the "similar to a Wall of Force spell" in the barred cage version of the spell is used as an explanation of how it interacts with incorporeal and ethereal, as everything else is either negated (shape) or already applied to the spell (dispel resistance, effects of disintegration and etc.) in another line. Nothing in the text of Forcecage, or in the borrowed effects from Wall of Force, allows it to apply to this line:

That's a separate sentence that you're talking about, two sentences after the one I'm referring to. That's fine though, you can read it that way but I'm reading "(similar to a wall of force)" as a self-contained independent clause modifying "Forcecage" in the description of what it's made out of/how it's created. Who's to say whose interpretation is right? That's the problem:



:smallconfused:I didn't bring up the comic, this is a rules discussion.
Beyond that, my point is there is nothing in the RAW explicitly granting Forcecage AMF immunity.

Yes and there's nothing in the RAW that says explicitly what drowning is either, hence the outlandish theories about saving dying people's lives by sticking their head in a bucket of water. The point is, there are many instances where the rules are poorly written, leaving room for debate like this.


Forcecage != Xykon's Moderately Escapable Forcecage.

Right you are. Except when he cast it, it was explicitly called Forcecage (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0370.html), so that explanation from Xykon several episodes later makes it look like a retcon to fit the plot. Which is pretty much what I was saying.

olentu
2009-01-30, 12:23 AM
Right you are. Except when he cast it, it was explicitly called Forcecage (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0370.html), so that explanation from Xykon several episodes later makes it look like a retcon to fit the plot. Which is pretty much what I was saying.

I would say that #345, while not the best example, is an example of where a spell name and the word said while casting do not match exactly.

FMArthur
2009-01-30, 12:26 AM
I think it pays to take a big step back from even the spells themselves: it is arcane magic, and takes years of study for a wizard to understand it. It is ludicrously complex - the magical forces that you would use to make Grease are the same as the magical forces you would use to create Magic Missile. There are undoubtedly a gigantic amount of variables to keep in mind when manipulating arcane magic to do your bidding. It is not inconcievable that two arcane spells that seem related in function may be totally unrelated in construction. You can't assume that one thing operates like another in certain circumstances just because they are similar, especially when there is a well-established default behaviour for non-exceptions.

Hell, even if one spell really is just a more powerful version of the other, you don't know how an antimagic field operates; just the extra power and complexity might be robbing the spell of enough stability to collapse in an AMF.

Worira
2009-01-30, 12:27 AM
Actually the "similar to a Wall of Force spell" in the barred cage version of the spell is used as an explanation of how it interacts with incorporeal and ethereal, as everything else is either negated (shape) or already applied to the spell (dispel resistance, effects of disintegration and etc.) in another line. Nothing in the text of Forcecage, or in the borrowed effects from Wall of Force, allows it to apply to this line:


:smallconfused:I didn't bring up the comic, this is a rules discussion.
Beyond that, my point is there is nothing in the RAW explicitly granting Forcecage AMF immunity.

What? Extending onto the ethereal plane is already mentioned in forcecage's description.

Roland St. Jude
2009-01-30, 12:38 AM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please leave the comic out of this or I'll move it to OotS section and merge it with the similar thread in progress there.

angus cotton
2009-01-30, 12:39 AM
the SRD explicitly states regarding Antimagic Fields (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#antimagic), "Wall of force, prismatic wall, and prismatic sphere are not affected by antimagic.

You all are on a slippery slope. If you start making exceptions to the rule because of your own egocentric perception of the logical implications of something that is inherently illogical (in this case, Anti-Magic), then it opens the door to what else might be the exception to the rule that is, somehow, missed by the rules and the errata. For example, the Ring mentioned above.

Another example: If you allow Forcecage to function in an Anti-Magic field, should you not allow Prismatic Spray to function in an Anti-Magic Field, since it is also in line with the above quote, but somehow missed by the rules and errata?

olentu
2009-01-30, 12:48 AM
You all are on a slippery slope. If you start making exceptions to the rule because of your own egocentric perception of the logical implications of something that is inherently illogical (in this case, Anti-Magic), then it opens the door to what else might be the exception to the rule that is, somehow, missed by the rules and the errata. For example, the Ring mentioned above.

Another example: If you allow Forcecage to function in an Anti-Magic field, should you not allow Prismatic Spray to function in an Anti-Magic Field, since it is also in line with the above quote, but somehow missed by the rules and errata?

I will note that as I have been arguing if the only spells that are allowed to function in an antimagic field are "Wall of force, prismatic wall, and prismatic sphere" (with the specific exception of two antimagic fields where one does not cancel the other) then an antimagic field cancels itself.

Of course this does leave the possibility of an antimagic field different from the spell that would not cancel itself but I can not think of an example off the top of my head although I would not be surprised if one exists given the mass of books.

Animefunkmaster
2009-01-30, 12:59 AM
While there isn't RAW that explicitly says force cage is immune to antimagic field... neither does prismatic sphere.

The qualifiers for what is and isn't raw is to be interpreted by the word "like" or "similar" (with regards to force cage and which srd you are looking at) and "functions as" (with regards to prismatic sphere... keep in mind nothing in prismatic wall does it state it's immunities, that's only in antimagic field).

Because there isn't raw, people tend to swing different ways with there interpretations. My personal interpretation is that both force cage and prismatic sphere are immune to antimagic field.

A similar question could be posed with force cage, regarding gaze attacks. No where in the description does it mention force cage blocking or not blocking gaze attacks... however, in Wall of force (which force cage is like/similar) it says that it specifically doesn't. Am I to assume that force cage does by virtue of not making gaze attacks an exception? I wouldn't.

hamishspence
2009-01-30, 11:54 AM
Forcecage is not the only spell which creates walls of force (with no capitals) the Force Chest spell in Spell compendium does too.

And it doesn't have antimagic immunity listed either.

The last published source (Rules Compendium) is assumed to override earlier ones where rules are different. And it lists Prismatic Sphere, Prismatic Wall, Wall of Force, thats it.

There are a lot of prismatic spells out there- aside from those two, none have Antimagic Immunity.

So why would Force spells be any different?

in the OOTS thread I suggested a fluff answer for the RAW answer- those three spells were specifically exempted by the person who first invented Antimagic field. Everyone who has learned it since, is stuck with that slightly flawed version.

olentu
2009-01-30, 04:11 PM
So since I do not have access to all of my books at the moment can anyone tell me if the rules compendium excerpt about antimagic on the wizards website is the same as the text in the actual rules compendium.

Well in any case the excerpt does say that wall of force, prismatic wall, and prismatic sphere are not affected but does not say that they are the only spells not affected. Since the excerpt is not reprinting the spell entry there is no problem with other spells being immune to an antimagic field.

Assume John, Jake, Josh, Jack, and Joe are immune to measles. If I say "John, Jake, and Josh are immune to measles." that does not mean that they are the only people immune to measles it only means that they are. So since the excerpt is not an explicitly exclusive list there is no conflict with the sentence "Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions)." from the text of antimagic field.

As I have said before if the only spells immune to an antimagic field are wall of force, prismatic wall, and prismatic sphere then an antimagic field spell will cancel itself. Also if taking the excerpt as an exclusive list artifacts and deities are now effected by an antimagic field since the rules compendium excerpt does not say "Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this."

hamishspence
2009-01-30, 04:15 PM
Specific trumps general. the spell itself specifically states it does not affect other antimagic fields, artifacts, and deities.

a good rule of thumb- if something is as wide-range ranging as that, the exceptions need to be stated. If other spells are published saying "This spell functions normally in an antimagic field"- fine. But the statement has to be explicit.

olentu
2009-01-30, 04:24 PM
Specific trumps general. the spell itself specifically states it does not affect other antimagic fields, artifacts, and deities.

a good rule of thumb- if something is as wide-range ranging as that, the exceptions need to be stated. If other spells are published saying "This spell functions normally in an antimagic field"- fine. But the statement has to be explicit.

Well in that case the spell also says "Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions)." meaning that while wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall are immune they are not necessarily the only ones immune since the excerpt does not contradict the spell entry.

Also while an antimagic field does not affect other antimagic fields there is nothing keeping it from affecting itself.

So since the spell is so wide-ranging and there is no explicit exception in the text of antimagic field that keeps it from affecting itself it cancels itself.

hamishspence
2009-01-30, 04:34 PM
having it cancel itself would break the duration rules- spell remains in effect until duration expires.

anyway- its not being cast on itself- Forgotten Realms Campaign setting explains that it bends magic around an area, basically. may not be core, but is an attempt at explaining it.

See Individual Spell Descriptions- if its not in the AMF entry, it will be in the spell entry. on the subject of "its a wall of force, even if its not a Wall Of Force Spell" Forcecage isn't the only one- Force chest is made up of "walls of force"

olentu
2009-01-30, 04:56 PM
having it cancel itself would break the duration rules- spell remains in effect until duration expires.

anyway- its not being cast on itself- Forgotten Realms Campaign setting explains that it bends magic around an area, basically. may not be core, but is an attempt at explaining it.

See Individual Spell Descriptions- if its not in the AMF entry, it will be in the spell entry. on the subject of "its a wall of force, even if its not a Wall Of Force Spell" Forcecage isn't the only one- Force chest is made up of "walls of force"

Ok so perhaps I was not using the most precise wording. So where I have said cancel I meant suppress as in "An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it." So it comes under the "Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration." section.

Regardless of what the spell is being cast on the spells area would exist in its own area and suppress itself in its own area. And as you have said a problem with the Forgotten Realms Campaign setting is that it is not core and thus should only apply to the Forgotten Realms.

And as per the see individual spell descriptions text I am saying that similarly to how forcecage and apparently force chest do not have an explicit immunity to antimagic field antimagic field does not have an explicit immunity to antimagic field (except in the case of other antimagic fields). So in my mind if being consistent then since the other spells do not count as immune antimagic field does not count as immune.

To be clear I am not saying that requireing explicit immunity is bad or that it is an unreasonable choice. I am saying that as one of the results of this choice an antimagic field will generally suppress itself. Thus limiting the times when one would be a problem to ones created by an extraordinary ability, possibly ones created by a deity or artifact, and perhaps ones created in some other way to keep it from being magical such as being a planar trait.

hamishspence
2009-01-30, 05:10 PM
"used within, brought into, or cast into the area" I think the design is that it exempts itself, since its not being "brought into" its own area, or "cast into" since, the spell was already cast.

I don't think any DM would argue that the spell suppresses itself so never comes into effect. Otherwise, why have the spell in the first place if its gone as soon as its cast?

JaxGaret
2009-01-30, 05:33 PM
It seems to me that by RAW Forcecage is suppressed by AMF, like everything else that's not explicitly immune to it. It also seems to me that the RAI is that Forcecage is supposed to be immune to AMF.

hamishspence
2009-01-30, 05:37 PM
i'd be a bit more wary- Forcecage isn't the only spell made up of walls of force, one could make a case that any object of force not created by the Wall Of Force spell has to specify in its own description that its immune to AMF, to qualify.

RAI more likely, but RAW could go either way.

olentu
2009-01-30, 05:40 PM
"used within, brought into, or cast into the area" I think the design is that it exempts itself, since its not being "brought into" its own area, or "cast into" since, the spell was already cast.

I don't think any DM would argue that the spell suppresses itself so never comes into effect. Otherwise, why have the spell in the first place if its gone as soon as its cast?

Well it can clearly be considered to be used by the creator to suppress magic so it can fall under that definition, and I will agree that it was not cast into its own area.

As for brought I will reference a previous discussion in this thread on the same area.

I originally proposed on the other hand since the antimagic field is not brought or cast into its own area it might not stop itself. However if that train of thought is taken then any spell that would be within the area of an antimagic field when it is created is also not stopped since it is not brought or cast within the area

To which Zeful responded with Depends on the definition of "bring" used. Since brought is both the past tense and present participle of bring, we use it's definition for our purposes.

Let's see what dictionary.references.com has to say about bringbring
   /brɪŋ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bring] Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), brought, bring⋅ing.
1. to carry, convey, conduct, or cause (someone or something) to come with, to, or toward the speaker: Bring the suitcase to my house. He brought his brother to my office.
2. to cause to come to or toward oneself; attract: Her scream brought the police. He brought honor to his family by his heroism.
3. to cause to occur or exist: The medication brought instant relief.
4. to cause to come into a particular position, state, or effect: to bring the car to a stop.
5. to cause to appear or occur in the mind; evoke or recall: The letter brought her memories of youth.to cause to occur or exist
6. to persuade, convince, compel, or induce: She couldn't bring herself to sell the painting.
7. to sell for; fetch: These lamps will bring a good price.
8. Law. to commence: to bring an action for damages.
The first and third ones seems to be relevant to the discussion at hand. The caster of the AMF caused the effect. The other spells occur or exist within the confines of the spell and thus are brought into the spell's area of effect.

And to which I conceded that Well there are various definitions but I find that the sentence ,An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, to have caused to occur or exist into, or cast into the area, to not make so much sense. I can make some sense of it but not as much as other definitions.

And in any case, if taking your interpertation then by creating the antimagic field the caster causes the antimagic field to occur or exist within its own area and thus can be said to have brought the antimagic field into its own area as much as the spells that were covered by the area of the field when it is created.

And this means that now unlike my original assertion the antimagic field can be considered to be brought into the area and thus there is another way in which an antimagic field qualifies for canceling itself.

So while for the more generally used definition of brought an antimagic field would not satisfy the condition with regards to itself, for a perhaps less commonly used definition of brought (to cause to occur or exist) while making the sentence read quite badly it could be considered that an antimagic field satisfies the condition of being brought into itself.

And thus an antimagic field could be considered to satisfy either the used or the brought condition and in any case only one of the conditions needs to be satisfied. So an antimagic field should cancel itself if explicit immunity is required.

As for designer intent I can as easily argue that the designer of the spell forcecage intended that it be immune to antimagic fields (they just were not careful with the wording similarly to how I was not careful with the use of cancel and suppress) since its walls are either similar to wall of force (with no statement that the similarity does not include the immunity to antimagic) or the walls are made of solid walls of force where solid is being used to differentiate them from the bared version in that there are no holes and walls of force means a multiple of wall of force the spell.

While I as a DM would not argue that an antimagic field will suppress itself I would also not require explicit immunity however if I did require explicit immunity I would argue that an antimagic field would suppress itself so there might be a DM that would say the spell never comes into effect.

I can not however say why wizards would create a spell that is gone as soon as it is cast but I can not say why they would do any of the things that are a bit silly in my opinion.

hamishspence
2009-01-30, 06:00 PM
the main reason I'd argue explicit immunity is that since that are a lot of force spells that aren't Wall of Force, and aren't immune, its not Being Made Of Force that matters, its something unique to that particular spell.

Same principle with the prismatic ones.

Since there is no actual clue as to why some spells are suppressed and not the others, best to be conservative. (some would argue those three really shouldn't be immune either since there is no trait unique to the three of them)

I'd explain it being those three but not others, as a quirk put in by the original researcher, if it comes up.

olentu
2009-01-30, 06:23 PM
the main reason I'd argue explicit immunity is that since that are a lot of force spells that aren't Wall of Force, and aren't immune, its not Being Made Of Force that matters, its something unique to that particular spell.

Same principle with the prismatic ones.

Since there is no actual clue as to why some spells are suppressed and not the others, best to be conservative. (some would argue those three really shouldn't be immune either since there is no trait unique to the three of them)

I'd explain it being those three but not others, as a quirk put in by the original researcher, if it comes up.

Well I suppose (if talking about DM stance), that to clarify I would use implicit immunity within limits that I find reasonable, except in the case of explicit immunity or vunerability (unless I think that the explicit statement causes a problem such as something that hypothetically might state that it is immune and not immune). I would allow forcecage and any other spells that I believe make sufficient reference to wall of force, prismatic wall, or prismatic sphere to be immune, but I would for example not allow Resilient Sphere since I do not think it makes enough reference to an immune spell. Also I would for example allow antimagic field immunity to itself since there is the implication from the fact that it is immune to other antimagic fields that it would be immune to itself (although it does not say so explicitly) since I find that having it suppress itself could be a mistake and is rather nonsensical to me.

For an explination I would just say that the spells I allow are close enough to an immune spell to inherit the specific trait of immunity.

So while I would not let anything force or prismatic be immune I would also not be so conservative as to require explicit immunity as this leads to things that I find silly (such as antimagic field spells suppressing themselves).

Fiery Diamond
2009-01-30, 06:25 PM
The really weird part is that although Antimagic Field says that Wall of Force is unaffected, Wall of Force description does not. Instead, it only says the same things that Forcecage says when describing the similarities between itself and Wall of Force. To me, that just makes things even more confusing.

If WoF said that it was immune to AF but Forcecage didn't, then I would say the issue was clear-cut: Forcecage isn't immune. However, neither one of them says they are immune - only AF says that WoF is immune, and both of the other spells have the same description for Dispel magic not working and listing of what does work. As a DM, I would rule that Forcecage was immune, but I don't have a problem with it being decided otherwise.

Can someone explain to me why this got completely ignored?

hamishspence
2009-01-30, 06:29 PM
there are a lot of force and prismatic spells out there.

One suggestion was only the 10/10/10 ft cube is immune, not the 20/20/20 ft cage since one is Walls of Force and the other isn't.

Also, in Dungeonscape, there are Floors of Force- one might say, if its a flat plane of force, its a wall, horizontal, but still a wall.

most DMS, even with explicit immunity required in some book, somewhere, would stop short of the spell suppressing itself on casting, same as the drowning trick taking you from negative HP to zero HP, on a "You must be joking" principle- if it breaks DMs view of verisimilitude, its out.

olentu
2009-01-30, 06:43 PM
there are a lot of force and prismatic spells out there.

One suggestion was only the 10/10/10 ft cube is immune, not the 20/20/20 ft cage since one is Walls of Force and the other isn't.

Also, in Dungeonscape, there are Floors of Force- one might say, if its a flat plane of force, its a wall, horizontal, but still a wall.

most DMS, even with explicit immunity required in some book, somewhere, would stop short of the spell suppressing itself on casting, same as the drowning trick taking you from negative HP to zero HP, on a "You must be joking" principle- if it breaks DMs view of verisimilitude, its out.

What constitutes verisimilitude varies from person to person and well I would have to read the specific wording in Dungeonscape to see if I would allow it.

Fiery Diamond as for that I did not mention it since I would argue that it is an implication but not an explicit statement and so would probably not satisfy the people who argue for explicit immunity being required.

Zeful
2009-01-30, 06:46 PM
Well it can clearly be considered to be used by the creator to suppress magic so it can fall under that definition, and I will agree that it was not cast into its own area.

As for brought I will reference a previous discussion in this thread on the same area.

I originally proposed on the other hand since the antimagic field is not brought or cast into its own area it might not stop itself. However if that train of thought is taken then any spell that would be within the area of an antimagic field when it is created is also not stopped since it is not brought or cast within the area

To which Zeful responded with Depends on the definition of "bring" used. Since brought is both the past tense and present participle of bring, we use it's definition for our purposes.

Let's see what dictionary.references.com has to say about bringbring
   /brɪŋ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bring] Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), brought, bring⋅ing.
1. to carry, convey, conduct, or cause (someone or something) to come with, to, or toward the speaker: Bring the suitcase to my house. He brought his brother to my office.
2. to cause to come to or toward oneself; attract: Her scream brought the police. He brought honor to his family by his heroism.
3. to cause to occur or exist: The medication brought instant relief.
4. to cause to come into a particular position, state, or effect: to bring the car to a stop.
5. to cause to appear or occur in the mind; evoke or recall: The letter brought her memories of youth.to cause to occur or exist
6. to persuade, convince, compel, or induce: She couldn't bring herself to sell the painting.
7. to sell for; fetch: These lamps will bring a good price.
8. Law. to commence: to bring an action for damages.
The first and third ones seems to be relevant to the discussion at hand. The caster of the AMF caused the effect. The other spells occur or exist within the confines of the spell and thus are brought into the spell's area of effect. No, I didn't, this quote was in response to
However if that train of thought is taken then any spell that would be within the area of an antimagic field when it is created is also not stopped since it is not brought or cast within the area and apparently used would only mean active use not passively existing. I did not once mention the argument that Antimagic Field supresses itself.

Tokiko Mima
2009-01-30, 06:59 PM
Can someone explain to me why this got completely ignored?

TL;DNR


...

Kidding! You have a valid point, but I think you're arguing semantics and patterns and not RAW. Remember that English is the kind of language that drags other languages to the back of darkened streets to violently rob them of their vocabulary. So it's arbitrary to say that something should or shouldn't be mentioned because it may or may not have been mentioned in another entry. We need specifics and in this case it's woefully lacking. So again, AMF is nearly always handled by DM fiat. It's one of the failures of the 3.5 system.

olentu
2009-01-30, 06:59 PM
No, I didn't, this quote was in response to I did not once mention the argument that Antimagic Field supresses itself.

Well then I appologize for misquoting and I suppose then that you were not arguing against an antimagic field supressing itself with that part of the post.

However I could use clarification on if you were arguing against an antimagic field canceling itself with the part that says "Not to doubt your reading comprehension or anything but you are aware that AMF's "Two or more Antimagic Fields shareing the same space have no effect on each other." Falls under the "(see individual spell description)" clause?" so that I will not misquote you in the future.

Zeful
2009-01-30, 08:02 PM
Well then I appologize for misquoting and I suppose then that you were not arguing against an antimagic field supressing itself with that part of the post.

However I could use clarification on if you were arguing against an antimagic field canceling itself with the part that says "Not to doubt your reading comprehension or anything but you are aware that AMF's "Two or more Antimagic Fields shareing the same space have no effect on each other." Falls under the "(see individual spell description)" clause?" so that I will not misquote you in the future.

Touché, I attributed that to a different post. That argument was to point out that logically that if another antimagic field can't bring one down, then it is immune to it's own negative effects.

olentu
2009-01-30, 08:17 PM
Touché, I attributed that to a different post. That argument was to point out that logically that if another antimagic field can't bring one down, then it is immune to it's own negative effects.

It is an unfortunate thing but I have found it best to try apply as little real world logic as possible when dealing with D&D RAW.


I do however feel free to apply what I see as reasonable when making rulings in a DM capacity.

ericgrau
2009-01-30, 09:24 PM
To throw another wrench in the works I'd like to note that the 10'x10' walls of force in the cube version could merely be walls made of force and not necessarily the same as wall of force spells. :smalltongue: And I was one of the first to say that forcecage trumps AMF.

The main part I pointed to was the sentance that said "like a wall of force, forcecage is immune to X, Y & Z, but can be beat by A, B & C." Unlike other spells there are no differences mentioned. However AMF is annoyingly absent from that list, as are many spells on the wall of force's list compared to the AMF's list of same and likewise for other such lists. So basically the rules are annoyingly ambiguous in that they don't say whether forcecage does or does not work in an AMF. I found nothing in the FAQ as well. IMO their intent was to say it had the same immunities and weaknesses as a wall of force, but I can't find a 100% certain answer.

Zeful
2009-01-30, 09:43 PM
To throw another wrench in the works I'd like to note that the 10'x10' walls of force in the cube version could merely be walls made of force and not necessarily the same as wall of force spells. :smalltongue: And I was one of the first to say that forcecage trumps AMF.Kinda late on that one. I already mentioned that. Without the "(as the spell)" addendum, it doesn't work that way.


The main part I pointed to was the sentance that said "like a wall of force, forcecage is immune to X, Y & Z, but can be beat by A, B & C." Unlike other spells there are no differences mentioned. However AMF is annoyingly absent from that list, as are many spells on the wall of force's list compared to the AMF's list of same and likewise for other such lists. So basically the rules are annoyingly ambiguous in that they don't say whether forcecage does or does not work in an AMF. I found nothing in the FAQ as well.Even if Forcecage were written: "This spell works as the spell Wall of Force with the following differences" it would still not be immune to Antimagic Field. Because Wall of Force doesn't get AMF immunity from itself. The ability is bestowed by Antimagic Field.

ericgrau
2009-01-30, 09:50 PM
Because Wall of Force doesn't get AMF immunity from itself. The ability is bestowed by Antimagic Field.

:smallconfused: I think I got a crick in my brain from that statement. Yeah, I know what you're trying to say and that doesn't help, so no need to clarify. You know what, I'm just gonna back out of this discussion. This is an aversion to the discussion itself not either side of it, btw.

Fiery Diamond
2009-01-31, 05:02 PM
Wow, you actually just said what I said was baffling a long time ago, in many fewer words.

hamishspence
2009-01-31, 05:09 PM
its more that Wall Of Force isn't described as being AMF immune in its own entry, but it is in the AMF spell description, and the Rules Compendium description of antimagic.

Call it an oversight, but with multiple sources stating it is immune, the fact that the spell itself doesn't mention it isn't so important.

Zeful
2009-01-31, 06:11 PM
its more that Wall Of Force isn't described as being AMF immune in its own entry, but it is in the AMF spell description, and the Rules Compendium description of antimagic.

Call it an oversight, but with multiple sources stating it is immune, the fact that the spell itself doesn't mention it isn't so important.

It isn't important for Wall of Force specifically, but for spells that work like Wall of Force to some degree (like Forcecage in this instance) it's very important. Immunity to Antimagic is a property of a Wall of Force (produced by the spell), but it's not a property inherent to the Wall of Force spell. It's a property attributed from Antimagic Field. Spells that act like Wall of Force can't gain that property with out explicitly stating on their own that they are immune to AMF. Likewise spells that act like Antimagic Field have to explicitly state that AMF's exceptions (Wall of force, Prismatic Orb, Prismatic Spray) don't apply to them, or they don't effect those spells.

olentu
2009-01-31, 06:42 PM
It isn't important for Wall of Force specifically, but for spells that work like Wall of Force to some degree (like Forcecage in this instance) it's very important. Immunity to Antimagic is a property of a Wall of Force (produced by the spell), but it's not a property inherent to the Wall of Force spell. It's a property attributed from Antimagic Field. Spells that act like Wall of Force can't gain that property with out explicitly stating on their own that they are immune to AMF. Likewise spells that act like Antimagic Field have to explicitly state that AMF's exceptions (Wall of force, Prismatic Orb, Prismatic Spray) don't apply to them, or they don't effect those spells.

Well it depends on how strict someone is being since a wall of force does not say it is is immune to an antimagic field in its description. However to take an example consider the hypothetical spell fabric cage. This spell makes a cloth net that entangles the target and the strands of the net are immune to an antimagic field so it could be said that the strands are similar to a wall of force created by the wall of force spell in that they are both immune to an antimagic field so I would say that it is within a reasonable interpretation of similar to allow the walls of a forcecage to be immune to an antimagic field but it is also reasonable to have them vulnerable.

So the problem with having an agreement seems to me to be that the interpretation of words such as like or similar can vary greatly from person to person and unfortunately those type of words are often used in the rules, and the rules do not explicitly define how they are to be used.

And requiring explicit immunity still causes the same somewhat strange interaction of an antimagic field with itself.

Zeful
2009-01-31, 06:51 PM
Well it depends on how strict someone is being since a wall of force does not say it is is immune to an antimagic field in its description. However to take an example consider the hypothetical spell fabric cage. This spell makes a cloth net that entangles the target and the strands of the net are immune to an antimagic field so it could be said that the strands are similar to a wall of force created by the wall of force spell in that they are both immune to an antimagic field so I would say that it is within a reasonable interpretation of similar to allow the walls of a forcecage to be immune to an antimagic field but it is also reasonable to have them vulnerable.

So the problem with having an agreement seems to me to be that the interpretation of words such as like or similar can vary greatly from person to person and unfortunately those type of words are often used in the rules, and the rules do not explicitly define how they are to be used.

And requiring explicit immunity still causes the same somewhat strange interaction of an antimagic field with itself.

True, it's not unreasonable or illogical to rule that a forcecage is immune to AMF, but the RAW is more indicative (which, to be honest, isn't actually saying that much) of it not being immune.

olentu
2009-01-31, 07:04 PM
True, it's not unreasonable or illogical to rule that a forcecage is immune to AMF, but the RAW is more indicative (which, to be honest, isn't actually saying that much) of it not being immune.

Personally I would have it leaning slightly the other way but that is probably because I am coming from an original view point of not requiring explicit immunity while you appear to be coming from the opposite.

However I do agree that the RAW being more or less indicative of something is not saying very much at all.