PDA

View Full Version : [3.P] How do you feel about the concept of antimagic?



Endarire
2010-11-21, 09:38 PM
"Antimagic" in this case is not counterspelling. Instead, it's a means of removing all or almost all magic from you briefly (antimagic field) or permanently (disjunction on a creature with an artifact).

I greatly dislike it. It's a binary switch that says, "Casters get benched" or "Things work as normal."

Crow
2010-11-21, 09:46 PM
I love it. It's the great equalizer, though a significantly prepared caster *can* overcome it.

That said, as a DM I use it very sparingly, if at all. I think in all my years DMing, I've never used AM Field or Disjunction on the players. I've seen the players use it quite a few times though, but never on a whim. Each time, the trade-offs were weighed very carefully before they pulled the trigger.

Psyren
2010-11-21, 09:49 PM
I see it as a necessary evil. Without it, incarcerating spellcasters becomes nearly impossible, which would mandate their summary execution instead for even middling infractions.

randomhero00
2010-11-21, 09:50 PM
disjunction needs to be painfully tortured and die. AMF is OK. That affects the user too often enough.

The thing is, when a caster can cast epic spells and timestop sheninigans and such you need something that can at least slow them down.

*grumble grumble* is in epic game atm and is annoyed at the lack of good options for non casters.

John Campbell
2010-11-21, 09:59 PM
Antimagic field once enabled me to take out a balor by throwing an unconscious cleric at it, so I'm good with it.

randomhero00
2010-11-21, 10:01 PM
PS disjunction should die in fire.

Seriously, what were they thinking with this? I would really like to know. Has anyone officially asked WotC about it?

Tvtyrant
2010-11-21, 10:04 PM
"Antimagic" in this case is not counterspelling. Instead, it's a means of removing all or almost all magic from you briefly (antimagic field) or permanently (disjunction on a creature with an artifact).

I greatly dislike it. It's a binary switch that says, "Casters get benched" or "Things work as normal."

I think it should be a monk ability, actually. If you think of magic as breaking natural laws, then AMF's should be about forcing nature to ignore the breaks in the laws. So a monk could concentrate on making things remain the way they are (in a meditative state) and it would counter the magic in use.

It would make monks useful without having to throw harder punches or other crazy stuff.

Marnath
2010-11-21, 10:05 PM
disjunction needs to be painfully tortured and die. AMF is OK. That affects the user too often enough.

The thing is, when a caster can cast epic spells and timestop sheninigans and such you need something that can at least slow them down.

*grumble grumble* is in epic game atm and is annoyed at the lack of good options for non casters.

Obviously the answer is to craft Epic Antimagic Field: this spell is effective against even epic spells. I'm sure it could be done.

randomhero00
2010-11-21, 10:07 PM
Obviously the answer is to craft Epic Antimagic Field: this spell is effective against even epic spells. I'm sure it could be done.

err how? I suck at crafting rules. I find em boring so I've never tried.

AstralFire
2010-11-21, 10:07 PM
It depends on how well the metaphysics are constructed. In D&D, which is the subject at hand, antimagic covers such diverse fields that it makes as much sense as "ANTIPHYSICS!" Seriously.

Ysalamiri in Star Wars, on the other hand, are actually kinda interesting.

Psyren
2010-11-21, 10:09 PM
err how? I suck at crafting rules. I find em boring so I've never tried.

I think he means you can make an epic antimagic field that could suppress even epic spells. Of course, one could respond by crafting an epic dispel that can work in your super antimagic field. And so on until the DCs become impossible to hit.

Marnath
2010-11-21, 10:10 PM
I think he means you can make an epic antimagic field that could suppress even epic spells. Of course, one could respond by crafting an epic dispel that can work in your super antimagic field. And so on until the DCs become impossible to hit.

Yeah, thats what I meant. Except the other guy doesn't get to research epic dispel because you waited to attack the first time until you were sure you could get him. :smallwink:

Safety Sword
2010-11-21, 10:13 PM
I see it as a necessary evil. Without it, incarcerating spellcasters becomes nearly impossible, which would mandate their summary execution instead for even middling infractions.

I have always used a set of bracers that negate magic coming from the person wearing them. It allows the "law" to still use magic on offenders to control them.

The rationale on how the bracers work can also be nice fluff.

Psyren
2010-11-21, 10:19 PM
I have always used a set of bracers that negate magic coming from the person wearing them. It allows the "law" to still use magic on offenders to control them.

The rationale on how the bracers work can also be nice fluff.

Sounds like Antimagic Shackles from BoED - and indeed, this is the entire point behind them, allowing you to imprison dangerous casters without being forced to execute them or let them continue rampaging.

randomhero00
2010-11-21, 10:21 PM
I have always used a set of bracers that negate magic coming from the person wearing them. It allows the "law" to still use magic on offenders to control them.

The rationale on how the bracers work can also be nice fluff.

Wait, what? I'm really curious because I'm looking to take down an epic (and extremely powerful) caster.

oxybe
2010-11-21, 10:22 PM
do you like seeing players whip out a gameboy mid session?

do you like seeing players leave the table and start channel surfing?

do you like players taking naps after saying "call me when i become relevant again"?

if you answered yes to any of these questions, please don't ever ask me to join your game. you will be laughed at. there might be a stream of pop coming from my nose.

mechanics that totally turn off a PC is bad design. period. i mean, it's not like the guys came over to play a game with their friends, right?

Psyren
2010-11-21, 10:23 PM
Wait, what? I'm really curious because I'm looking to take down an epic (and extremely powerful) caster.

*points at his post*


mechanics that totally turn off a PC is bad design.

Relax, it's only a 10' radius...
It just requires some modified tactics is all.

Marnath
2010-11-21, 10:26 PM
do you like seeing players whip out a gameboy mid session?

do you like seeing players leave the table and start channel surfing?

do you like players taking naps after saying "call me when i become relevant again"?

if you answered yes to any of these questions, please don't ever ask me to join your game. you will be laughed at. there might be a stream of pop coming from my nose.

mechanics that totally turn off a PC is bad design. period. i mean, it's not like the guys came over to play a game with their friends, right?

Obviously you've never seen a battle sorceror crush the anti-magic user's head with a masterwork mace.
But more seriously, I think that's overly dramatic. There are other things you can do, you know like move out of the area effect and cast more?

Safety Sword
2010-11-21, 10:27 PM
Sounds like Antimagic Shackles from BoED - and indeed, this is the entire point behind them, allowing you to imprison dangerous casters without being forced to execute them or let them continue rampaging.

Sounds like it. Although I have never read and don't have BoED..

It's actually a straight copy of something I read in a Maggie Furey book.. maybe "Aurian"... definitely in that series though.

Yes, it turns off a PC spellcaster... just long enough that they have to do something else until they find the "key" to unshackle themselves. Then they can continue to win D&D with ease.

Marnath
2010-11-21, 10:32 PM
Yes, it turns off a PC spellcaster... just long enough that they have to do something else until they find the "key" to unshackle themselves. Then they can continue to win D&D with ease.

And the skinny bookworm is going to escape the cell whose wall he's chained to how? It's a lot harder to get out of a place like that than you think.

Hironomus
2010-11-21, 10:33 PM
Realistically in a world where magic is so dangerous, and certainly the greatest threat to anyone (magic user or not) it is ludicrous to believe that such a thing as antimagic would not be used alot.
Any sufficiently powerful force that is expecting to be troubled by magic users should use antimagic. the fact is, in any civilised environment, massively powerful things do not exist without some means to control them.

Safety Sword
2010-11-21, 10:36 PM
And the skinny bookworm is going to escape the cell whose wall he's chained to how? It's a lot harder to get out of a place like that than you think.

That's what melee characters are for.

If nothing bad ever happens to your character and you're never challenged to do anything differently, RPGs get boring.

Yes, I'm a DM. Yes, I will screw with your character. Yes, it will be satisfying when you overcome the challenge and "regain" what was taken from you.

Casters can be more than a spell book with legs.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-21, 10:37 PM
That's what melee characters are for.

If nothing bad ever happens to your character and you're never challenged to do anything differently, RPGs get boring.

Yes, I'm a DM. Yes, I will screw with your character. Yes, it will be satisfying when you overcome the challenge and "regain" what was taken from you.

Casters can be more than a spell book with legs.

Unless they are a MT, where the need to have two maxed stats makes them essentially a man with a book in each hand feebly staring at the shackles.

Safety Sword
2010-11-21, 10:42 PM
Unless they are a MT, where the need to have two maxed stats makes them essentially a man with a book in each hand feebly staring at the shackles.

Mystic Theurge... Oh God, I almost wet myself. Clearly, you should get penalties for TWF if you have a book in both hands. :smalltongue:

And before this thread derails (I mean... more) it isn't something I'd put onto a PC long term. It would be a condition that lasted as long as it takes to press home the inconvenience and hence the reason not to be caught again.

Marnath
2010-11-21, 10:43 PM
That's what melee characters are for.

If nothing bad ever happens to your character and you're never challenged to do anything differently, RPGs get boring.

Yes, I'm a DM. Yes, I will screw with your character. Yes, it will be satisfying when you overcome the challenge and "regain" what was taken from you.

Casters can be more than a spell book with legs.

Make it more interesting then, curse the bracers to not come off unless certain conditions are met. Or change it up and have the spellbook stolen, if you want to see how creative the wizard gets when he's limited to what he had memorized that day until he finds his book again.

Safety Sword
2010-11-21, 10:49 PM
Make it more interesting then, curse the bracers to not come off unless certain conditions are met.

That would be the "key".


Or change it up and have the spellbook stolen, if you want to see how creative the wizard gets when he's limited to what he had memorized that day until he finds his book again.

I prefer to torture my players. Leave the spellbook there and taunt him with the fact that he can't use it. :smallamused:

John Campbell
2010-11-21, 10:50 PM
mechanics that totally turn off a PC is bad design. period. i mean, it's not like the guys came over to play a game with their friends, right?

Antimagic field doesn't do that. Not even to the extent that, say, hold person against any character with a poor Will save (almost any melee type) or Evard's black tentacles against anyone who isn't a dedicated grapple specialist (almost everyone) does.

There's absolutely nothing preventing a caster from walking out of the field's radius and regaining his godlike powers. There are even spells that you can cast into an antimagic field.

And if we're talking about a cell with antimagic on it so that the casters have to stay in the cell like the mundane riffraff classes do... hang on, let me make a Perform (world's tiniest violin) check here...

Safety Sword
2010-11-21, 10:51 PM
And if we're talking about a cell with antimagic on it so that the casters have to stay in the cell like the mundane riffraff classes do... hang on, let me make a Perform (world's tiniest violin) check here...

I giggled.

maysarahs
2010-11-21, 11:14 PM
As a Player:
AMF is ok, and a legitimate challenge to circumvent, plus, I play casters a lot, and when I am not god-tripping, I recognize that it's a good chance for noncasters to shine. I might even (if I was in a buffing mood that day) cast it myself to bring them into the limelight for a bit (for the fun of the group). Disjunction on the other hand sucks. If I use it, thats part of my treasure I just destroyed, (and everyone else is mad).

As a DM:
AMF is great! Stick it in a room where the other options are to stand in a pit of acid or in the way of enemy beatsticks, and it makes making a challenge a lot easier (I don't have to expect the wizard to pull out JUST the right spell to make everyone else feel useless, and the god-tripping wizard gets knocked down a couple notches and has to sweat his way through at least one of the encounters for the day)
Disjunction from a DM's standpoint is even worse. If I use it on a PC, they just lost something they worked really hard to earn. Saying "oh ok here's a replacement item, sorry" negates the use of the spell (why use it in the first place?) and for a little bit there, Mr. Fighter was looking at his now masterwork longsword, and staring at the Wizard magicking his way through the battle.

tl;dr:
AMF temporarily suppresses all that is unbalanced about D&D (and temporarily makes melee players feel important)
Disjunction doesn't stop a wizard from casting, but can stop a fighter from fighting (effectively, at his level)

Tvtyrant
2010-11-21, 11:29 PM
The only reason I would use disjunction is as a way to destroy an AMF. Low chance, but better then nothing.

Swordguy
2010-11-21, 11:53 PM
PS disjunction should die in fire.

Seriously, what were they thinking with this? I would really like to know. Has anyone officially asked WotC about it?

How about asking an ex-WotC/TSR employee?

The answer, by the way, is that disjunction is intended for one of three things:

1) Used by the DM to stop a Monty Haul campaign in its tracks and get back to rationality

2) Used by the DM as part of a way to challenge players in a way in which they aren't normally challenged - the expectation is that upon completing the challenge, they'd be restored to at or near their former power level (this is called good GMing, by the way, while just blowing up their stuff and leaving them naked forever is called bad GMing).

3) Used by the PCs when confronted is a really badass BBEG with lots of magic toys, in a scenario where it is more important to stop him than to loot him. For example: Party: "His 'magic X' is too strong! We can't hurt him - nothing we do is working!" Mage: "All right - stand back, this is something I've been saving just in case it all went south". Mage Disjunctions the BBEG's 'Magic X', and the party takes down the BBEG, collects their reward, and goes home to the victory party/orgy.


In short, Disjunction is supposed to be a major "plot-point" spell, like most of the game-breaking stuff. It's not meant to be spammed relentlessly by the players or the DM. Regardless of the fact that that can do it, doesn't mean they should.

randomhero00
2010-11-22, 02:54 PM
swordguy- I don't think any of those situations should come up naturally in the first place. i stand by my, "die in fire" comment.

PS if they really wanted a plot device deal, they could have simply made it temporary with a hefty cost to use. Similar to wish.

Crow
2010-11-22, 03:01 PM
PS if they really wanted a plot device deal, they could have simply made it temporary with a hefty cost to use. Similar to wish.

It *is* temporary, with a hefty price to use. It's not like using Disjunction means you will never find another piece of treasure, ever. You use it when the alternative is dying, and nobody gets treasure...and get to roll up new characters. You risk this hoard for the sake of keeping yourself alive. Plus, if you target it properly, you can limit the damage done.

Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it should "die in fire". How about you just not use it, and we call it good. Meanwhile, my players will continue to use it responsibly (and sparingly) like they do now, because they know damn well what it's capable of. Everybody looks at this stuff with such a black/white mentality. It really gets old.

randomhero00
2010-11-22, 03:15 PM
It *is* temporary, with a hefty price to use. It's not like using Disjunction means you will never find another piece of treasure, ever. You use it when the alternative is dying, and nobody gets treasure...and get to roll up new characters. You risk this hoard for the sake of keeping yourself alive. Plus, if you target it properly, you can limit the damage done.

Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it should "die in fire". How about you just not use it, and we call it good. Meanwhile, my players will continue to use it responsibly (and sparingly) like they do now, because they know damn well what it's capable of. Everybody looks at this stuff with such a black/white mentality. It really gets old.

Sorry not to be clear. I wasn't mentioning player use. That's okay really. It's when monsters use it against players that its really messed up. So far (maybe I've had bad DMs?) I've never had a DM keep us up with wealth by level. So if disjunction was used on me I'd be screwed for a long time until I could build my equipment back up.

Edit: and yes, this has happened in a real game where the NPCs used disjunction on us constantly and we had no recourse. Everyone quit that game.

Cogidubnus
2010-11-22, 03:18 PM
It depends on how well the metaphysics are constructed. In D&D, which is the subject at hand, antimagic covers such diverse fields that it makes as much sense as "ANTIPHYSICS!" Seriously.

Ysalamiri in Star Wars, on the other hand, are actually kinda interesting.

Anti-gravity, the spell. Fireball. Time Stop. Teleport. Those are your antiphysics spells.

AstralFire
2010-11-22, 03:21 PM
Anti-gravity, the spell. Fireball. Time Stop. Teleport. Those are your antiphysics spells.

Those are breaking physics in specific ways. There's no way to just go "BAM! ALL PHYSICS STOPS!"

Psyren
2010-11-22, 03:23 PM
Those are breaking physics in specific ways. There's no way to just go "BAM! ALL PHYSICS STOPS!"

Technically, AMF doesn't stop all magic either.

(I do know what you're getting at, I'm just being difficult :smalltongue:)

Tvtyrant
2010-11-22, 03:31 PM
Those are breaking physics in specific ways. There's no way to just go "BAM! ALL PHYSICS STOPS!"

Except magic is the anti-physics; the AMF is keeping things normal. This wouldn't be nearly as hard as changing it in the first place.

Shoot, you could even just have a constant sound emanation that messes with people's inner ears so they can't concentrate or inflect correctly.

Crow
2010-11-22, 03:34 PM
Sorry not to be clear. I wasn't mentioning player use. That's okay really. It's when monsters use it against players that its really messed up.

Ah, I see. :)

AstralFire
2010-11-22, 03:34 PM
And how does that work with (Su) abilities?

If magic exists in a world, magic cannot be opposed to physics, it's just a school of physics that are special cases. We have no button to turn off magnetism.

Jayabalard
2010-11-22, 04:41 PM
I kind of like Barbara Hambly's "Rune of the Chain" as far as items that cancel out magic... it's seen as an abomination, even by the church that is pretty damn anti-wizard.


The Rune of the Chain hung roped to [his] right hand. In the vague dreams of his half-conscious state, it took on other shapes and other meanings-visions of horror and disgust, vileness and pain. At other times, as his mind cleared briefly, he saw it as it was, a round lead seal marked with that terrible Rune, turning slowly on its black ribbons. The aura that flowed from it was a corruption that smothered all magic. In its presence his mind felt blotted; the hope and knowledge upon which magic was founded were swallowed in fetid pits of despair.


We have no button to turn off magnetism.Sure we do... it's called magic.

oxybe
2010-11-22, 05:44 PM
Antimagic field doesn't do that. Not even to the extent that, say, hold person against any character with a poor Will save (almost any melee type) or Evard's black tentacles against anyone who isn't a dedicated grapple specialist (almost everyone) does.

There's absolutely nothing preventing a caster from walking out of the field's radius and regaining his godlike powers. There are even spells that you can cast into an antimagic field.

And if we're talking about a cell with antimagic on it so that the casters have to stay in the cell like the mundane riffraff classes do... hang on, let me make a Perform (world's tiniest violin) check here...

unless you're in a wide open field there's rarely a place to run away to. heck most of the time what's stopping anyone from walking out is that there isn't a place to walk out to.

while it is casters who have access to AMF, dragons happen to be casters. many high level monsters happen to be casters. high level monsters who can hit like a truck even with AMF on. monsters with DR that your fighter's sword can't easily bypass without magic or serious min-maxing.

AMF is bad mechanics in response to bad design. again: mechanics that totally turn off a PC is bad design. period. i mean, it's not like the guys came over to play a game with their friends, right? surely you wouldn't complain if your fighter just lost all his gear. he can still pickup a club.

and sorry to say but that perform check didn't even hit DC10 dude. the crowd is not impressed and you are booed off stage. tavern's owner gives you a pity drink and tells you to please never play in his establishment again.

Eldariel
2010-11-22, 06:02 PM
In short, Disjunction is supposed to be a major "plot-point" spell, like most of the game-breaking stuff. It's not meant to be spammed relentlessly by the players or the DM. Regardless of the fact that that can do it, doesn't mean they should.

Huh. Should it not have an expensive XP component, then? Other major "plot power" spells like Wish and Gate and such have XP components for their casting, making them eminently unspammable (other than the unfortunate existence of SLAs and the associated rules...) and thus always epic events when used. I always thought that's how the game codified "the true last resort/epic spells".

jumpet
2010-11-22, 06:08 PM
I dislike the recalculation of various bonues, due to magic items being shut down. I'd rather AMF prevent all spells from taking effect and automatically dispelling all buffs, etc. Permanent magic items with passive effects would function normally, but not command word, spell completion and spell trigger items.

This means fighters and such would actually enjoy AMF much more as well. And no more giants in beholder AM ray cheese.

Ormur
2010-11-22, 06:54 PM
Anti magic field is fine. You can disable mundane classes by taking away their stick or use of their hands or whatever. Besides Anti Magic Fields aren't a total turn of button for casters, they just have to step out of it and use their instantaneous conjurations. It's also pretty hard to use an Anti Magic Field effectively, you have to be both a powerful caster (or granted invest in UMD) and be capable of fighting without magic. Anti magic areas for incarceration are also useful.

Disjunction seems to be much worse. I think it might still be appropriate as a weapon of last resort in the climactic epic battle where starting the equivalent of a nuclear war with mutually assured destruction is all right.

AstralFire
2010-11-22, 06:58 PM
Anti magic field is fine. You can disable mundane classes by taking away their stick or use of their hands or whatever. Besides Anti Magic Fields aren't a total turn of button for casters, they just have to step out of it and use their instantaneous conjurations. It's also pretty hard to use an Anti Magic Field effectively, you have to be both a powerful caster (or granted invest in UMD) and be capable of fighting without magic. Anti magic areas for incarceration are also useful.

Disjunction seems to be much worse. I think it might still be appropriate as a weapon of last resort in the climactic epic battle where starting the equivalent of a nuclear war with mutually assured destruction is all right.

From a balance point of view, AMF is equally neutering to casters and non, except wizards have a spell to get around it, and all casters are ranged, while most non are melee. As a result, they have much less flexibility in dealing with AMFs.

Jumpet's suggestion of allowing permanent magic items to remain in effect while neutering all spellcasting is likely way better for balance, and also can be rationalized to some degree.

fortesama
2010-11-22, 07:06 PM
Failing all that, they may have all kinds of odd items in their pockets like aboleth mucus and other things. Ever since i ran a sorcerer/paladin gish with a DM that likes to set up AMFs and dead magic zones almost everywhere, our casters have started bringing all kinds of alchemical items, grenadelike weapons, acids, poisons many kinds and many more for such situations.

Zeful
2010-11-22, 07:31 PM
mechanics that totally turn off a PC is bad design. period. i mean, it's not like the guys came over to play a game with their friends, right?

So you admit 3.x is badly designed? Because "totally turn off a PC" is what Wizards/Tier 1 Classes are best at.

Crow
2010-11-22, 08:22 PM
So you admit 3.x is badly designed? Because "totally turn off a PC" is what Wizards/Tier 1 Classes are best at.

Haha, that's what I thought too!

molten_dragon
2010-11-22, 08:33 PM
As both a player and a DM, I find that AMF can make a game more fun when used sparingly. It can turn a fairly mundane encounter into a much more challenging one, and requires some thought to get around. If used to often though, it starts to seem like you're just picking on the spellcasters or trying to nerf them with it, and that's not really fun.

Disjunction is a whole different kettle of fish. In a game where you are expected to have a certain amount of wealth to keep up, disjunction can seriously de-power a character, and will frequently affect the characters who can least afford it (i.e. fighters, rogues, etc.) the most.

oxybe
2010-11-22, 09:31 PM
So you admit 3.x is badly designed? Because "totally turn off a PC" is what Wizards/Tier 1 Classes are best at.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9548763&postcount=28

faceroll
2010-11-23, 01:24 AM
I like AMF effects.

Marnath
2010-11-23, 03:06 AM
Anti magic field is fine. You can disable mundane classes by taking away their stick or use of their hands or whatever. Besides Anti Magic Fields aren't a total turn of button for casters, they just have to step out of it and use their instantaneous conjurations. It's also pretty hard to use an Anti Magic Field effectively, you have to be both a powerful caster (or granted invest in UMD) and be capable of fighting without magic. Anti magic areas for incarceration are also useful.

Disjunction seems to be much worse. I think it might still be appropriate as a weapon of last resort in the climactic epic battle where starting the equivalent of a nuclear war with mutually assured destruction is all right.

Makes a good strategy for a battle sorceror with decent physical scores. "Inferior arcanist am I? Perhaps, but riddle me this: what happens If I turn the magic off and hit you with this sharp piece of metal? Oh, you never learned to use that staff in a real fight? Truly, that is unfortunate. :smallamused:"

Eldariel
2010-11-23, 03:29 AM
Makes a good strategy for a battle sorceror with decent physical scores. "Inferior arcanist am I? Perhaps, but riddle me this: what happens If I turn the magic off and hit you with this sharp piece of metal? Oh, you never learned to use that staff in a real fight? Truly, that is unfortunate. :smallamused:"

"Why, I'll walk 10' back and throw an Orb of Fire at you, which totally obliterates you since you just foolishly shut down all your magical defenses." Now, a true Gish and we're talking. Combat Reflexes, Stand Still, Thicket of Blades & Reach Weapon quickly make that plan a no-go.

JaronK
2010-11-23, 03:41 AM
In a world where it's an extremely high level ability, it just makes no sense to have a lot of it. But I'd be okay with lower level sources of it existing. Still, as a concept, I don't like the binary nature of it. I prefer natural causes of reduced magic... like Shadowrun's background count concept (briefly, emotional acts create astral static which makes magic more dangerous and less effective in the given area). Something that doesn't come out and surprise you (BAM, no magic) and thus you can plan around, but which feels reasonable and part of the environment.

JaronK

LordBlades
2010-11-23, 03:56 AM
"Why, I'll walk 10' back and throw an Orb of Fire at you, which totally obliterates you since you just foolishly shut down all your magical defenses." Now, a true Gish and we're talking. Combat Reflexes, Stand Still, Thicket of Blades & Reach Weapon quickly make that plan a no-go.

Been there, done that:smallsmile:
Played a Cleric/Crusader/ RKV with Magic and Travel domains. Can say Travel Devotion+free(ish) swift actions+AMF+Thicket of Blades+Stand Still made a very effective combo.

On Mordekainen's Disjunction, we use it very sparringly in our group. It's bascily a gentlemen's agreement between players and DM: we don't use any of the countless means full casters have to break WBL tables(just for the record, a wall of salt of minimum CL is worth several hundreds of thousand GP), and he won't use Disjunction to take our stuff away unless it's a very special circumstance.

Heliomance
2010-11-23, 05:40 AM
I'm always amazed that people actually allow the Orb line to work in antimagic. The effect they produce clearly belongs in Evocation, and while I'd be fine with a player taking them, I'd reschool them to Evocation, thus nixing that silly "can work in an AMF" bit.

Killer Angel
2010-11-23, 06:48 AM
I'm always amazed that people actually allow the Orb line to work in antimagic. The effect they produce clearly belongs in Evocation, and while I'd be fine with a player taking them, I'd reschool them to Evocation, thus nixing that silly "can work in an AMF" bit.

Peoples allow the orb line to work in an AMF, 'cause by RAW it works.
As a house rule, I agree with you.


AMF is bad mechanics in response to bad design. again: mechanics that totally turn off a PC is bad design. period.

I don't see your point.
First, AMF doesn't shut down a PC, unless there aren't other stacking limits (there's no room to move outside the field, someone grapples you, etc.)
Second, it is no different from "BBEG is flying. Dispel magic on the fighter's boots of flying".

3.5 is bad designed, and all the SoD spells are "bad mechanics that totally turn off a PC".

MickJay
2010-11-23, 07:28 AM
Huh. Should it not have an expensive XP component, then? Other major "plot power" spells like Wish and Gate and such have XP components for their casting, making them eminently unspammable (other than the unfortunate existence of SLAs and the associated rules...) and thus always epic events when used. I always thought that's how the game codified "the true last resort/epic spells".

I guess the rationale was that it doesn't need an expensive XP component, because its effect already costs you a lot (all the stuff you'll now never be able to loot). Any casting of Disjunction is en epic event in its own right, since it likely means destruction of more XP worth of magic items than Wish or Gate.

faceroll
2010-11-23, 07:38 AM
AMF is bad mechanics in response to bad design. again: mechanics that totally turn off a PC is bad design. period. i mean, it's not like the guys came over to play a game with their friends, right? surely you wouldn't complain if your fighter just lost all his gear. he can still pickup a club.

It depends if you like simulationism or gamism, I guess. I mean, if the D&D universe is real, it makes sense that sometime you're going to wind up a grunt being carpet-bombed from 60,000 feet by an untouchable stealth bomber. Or locked in a room that you can't get out of because no one builds a prison for magic users without being able to turn their magic off, just like no one builds a prison without walls since you could just walk away.

true_shinken
2010-11-23, 08:01 AM
"Antimagic" in this case is not counterspelling. Instead, it's a means of removing all or almost all magic from you briefly (antimagic field) or permanently (disjunction on a creature with an artifact).

I greatly dislike it. It's a binary switch that says, "Casters get benched" or "Things work as normal."

Seriously, Endarire, I think I'm not alone when I say I strongly disagree of your 'casters rule and noncasters can't get nice things' view.

oxybe
2010-11-23, 08:58 AM
It depends if you like simulationism or gamism, I guess. I mean, if the D&D universe is real, it makes sense that sometime you're going to wind up a grunt being carpet-bombed from 60,000 feet by an untouchable stealth bomber. Or locked in a room that you can't get out of because no one builds a prison for magic users without being able to turn their magic off, just like no one builds a prison without walls since you could just walk away.

i honestly don't give a rat's ass about simulationism or gamism or whatever.

i care about the fact that i have only 7 days a week to do stuff. i care that i have 24 hours a day to do stuff in which most of it is spent sleeping and working.

what i care about is having fun in my limited allowed free time. my real life is pretty boring. i get up at 8, take the bus at 9, get at work for 10, sit at a computer all day answering tech support calls, go home, "free time", sleep. my RPG time is pure escapism and since it's a 30 minute walk to the game store should i miss the hourly bus into town, i don't want to waste that time.

sitting about at a game table twiddling my thumbs for the majority of a 4-5 hour session is not my idea of fun. which is why i play casters: they have options built in outside "i hit it with an axe" and don't require me to metagame by using player skill to succeed outside of scenarios where "i hit it with an axe" is not a good idea.

any mechanics that tell a player "sorry but your character is effectively useless for this encounter/session/dungeon" is bad design. i could care less if the character is a wizard, a cleric, a fighter or a rogue. telling a player to find something else to do is bad design.

Callos_DeTerran
2010-11-23, 11:30 AM
any mechanics that tell a player "sorry but your character is effectively useless for this encounter/session/dungeon" is bad design. i could care less if the character is a wizard, a cleric, a fighter or a rogue. telling a player to find something else to do is bad design.

So...you commonly play spellcasters because 'non-spellcasters don't get enough options' and are upset at options that take away a given classes strengths, but particularly anti-magic from the looks of it? A little suspicious dude. Nor is anti-magic 'your character is effectively useless'. It's 'you need to think outside the box' if anything. Unless you get hit with anti-magic and decide to just placidly wait within it's bounds because you've somehow forsaken walking for some magical equivalent (And if you play spellcasters alot, this could be your problem, I don't know).

Or, and here's a thought, just play outside of your strengths for a little bit. Manuever to get around the anti-magic field, use physical weapons (cause you SHOULD still have a back-up weapon just for these circumstances), or, if the way is blocked by the anti-magic's source, take a risk and try to get past it.

Honestly, it amazes me when I hear IC stories about wizards who will never approach closer then 30 ft. to the enemy, even if magic is turned off, just because they might get hit once. Or go to obscene measures to protect themselves. Where's the risk/fun in that?

EDIT: Oh, right. Disjunction. I see uses behind it as a player and a DM. For a player it's always useful to depower a bad guy who's proving particularly troublesome (loot be damned), though I may only think this way since a majority of the enemies I fight keep their loot in 'lairs' that aren't actually anywhere close by. Or as a counter-spell. Believe me, I've yet to see the case where disjunction isn't considered an universal counter-spell and it comes in handy when battling enemy spellcasters getting ready to do something crazy like opening gates or casting wish.

As a DM, it's more of a sign to my players that they may have taken things too far. Players trying to stack a ridiculous number of buffs/debuffs on themselves/disjunction-capable enemy to make an important encounter abosolutely trivial? Well it's going to act intelligently and hit the reset button on all the buffs. Accidentally gave the party a broken magical item that they like to spam? Targeted disjunction to remove it from play....And of course as a counter-spell.

Psyren
2010-11-23, 11:46 AM
Deep breath guys, it's just a game :smallsmile:

AMF is useful in moderation, because it makes casters step outside their toolbox for a minute and solve problems with lateral thinking instead. Even if it's something as simple as "I need to stay 15 feet away from that guy at all times, and most of my spells won't work on him" - it adds tactical complexity. Now you have to save your orbs for that guy instead of the winged archer peppering your party from above, or ask the meatshield to keep him away from you while you concentrate on the monsters not so protected.

I am not in favor of constantly shutting casters down, but the occasional monster with AMF or SR spices things up.

MickJay
2010-11-23, 12:04 PM
any mechanics that tell a player "sorry but your character is effectively useless for this encounter/session/dungeon" is bad design. i could care less if the character is a wizard, a cleric, a fighter or a rogue. telling a player to find something else to do is bad design.

This would also mean that the DMs should never use spells and effects against players that are not pure damage spells, since a significant majority of the remaining combat spells also tends to make characters useless (or force them to do something else than they intended) for a period of time. And if your character dies, that really makes it useless until resurrection is available. :smallwink:

lesser_minion
2010-11-23, 01:00 PM
mechanics that totally turn off a PC is bad design. period. i mean, it's not like the guys came over to play a game with their friends, right? surely you wouldn't complain if your fighter just lost all his gear. he can still pickup a club.


mechanics that tell a player "sorry but your character is effectively useless for this encounter/session/dungeon" is bad design. i could care less if the character is a wizard, a cleric, a fighter or a rogue. telling a player to find something else to do is bad design.

Those mechanics are called 'losing' and 'setbacks'. Without them, you simply do not have a game. You have someone explaining how you steadily grow in power, invincibly slaughtering your way through endless hordes of enemies, only pausing to ask whether you'd like to brutally slaughter a tribe of orcs or perform a perfect heart bypass with a pencil sharpener next. If you like that, fine. Not really my cup of tea though.

Yes, the game is unbalanced. But that's a separate problem. You're just complaining about play styles you don't like here.

Moreover, anti-magic fields don't switch off casters at all -- they just introduce a complication. You can still work around an anti-magic field. If it's a monster with an AMF? Wall them into it and moonwalk past them.

If it's a monster with an AMF who managed to grapple you? Well, any circumstance where that's not just 'GG' is a problem in its own right.

oxybe
2010-11-23, 01:51 PM
the BBEG getting away after you've bested his plan is a setback.

the dragon eating the princess you were supposed to rescue is losing.

AMF is neither of these.

either way i'm done with this thread. you asked how i felt about it, i gave you my answer: it's a bad mechanic meant to turn off characters.

wether you agree with me or not is no skin off my back, just don't ask me to game with you if you ever plan on using it.

Golden-Esque
2010-11-23, 03:41 PM
Make it more interesting then, curse the bracers to not come off unless certain conditions are met. Or change it up and have the spellbook stolen, if you want to see how creative the wizard gets when he's limited to what he had memorized that day until he finds his book again.

"Guys ... has anyone seen my spellbook?"
"%#^#^%@, Varsuvius! That's the seventh time this dungeon that you let someone steal your spellbook!"

That scenario will happen VERY quickly if all you ever do is let the Wizard prepare once and then never let them prepare again. If anything, that's a larger cop-out then Disjunction or Antimagic Field. It's not hard to counter an Antimagic Field at all; oh no! A 10 foot radius! AAAAAAAAAH! A simple 5 foot step gets you half of the way out of the field while a standard move from any race; even movement impaired races like the Dwarf, get you out of there AND still able to cast spells.

In Pathfinder, you don't see Antimagic Field until 12th level, and even then it's only Sorcerers and Wizards that are using it on you. Oh hey, squishy is nullifying all of his defenses to stop your mage / Cleric's? My level 14 Sorcerer has 56 hit points and an AC of 17; I wonder how long he'll last against that Fighter that's now beating on him. Oh, and healing magic / escape magic won't work, because the squishy Wizard is in his own bubble after all.

At 16th level, you start seeing the same thing with the Cleric, who can JUST start casting Antimagic Field. While in their bubble, they can't use Channel Positive Energy, unarguably one of the most powerful healing abilities in Pathfinder, and all of their spells are shut down as well. A Cleric has slightly more hit points and armor then a Wizard or Sorcerer, but they're still shutting themselves down for a penalty that can be nullified with a move action.

Now of course, Antimagic Field becomes much more useful when you work with your party members. Have a Monk grapple the mage maybe and cast Antimagic Field on top of the two of them so that Mage is pretty much dead; yeah, that's a little cheesey, but it's something you did with two separate characters working together and I'd call it good use of tactics.

I agree that Disjunction might be a little too powerful, but it's also a 9th level spell; we're talking about the levels where you can instantly slay almost anything, defy reality, and summon Meteor-ish fireballs to incinerate foes. It's gonna be powerful.

Marnath
2010-11-23, 07:36 PM
"Guys ... has anyone seen my spellbook?"
"%#^#^%@, Varsuvius! That's the seventh time this dungeon that you let someone steal your spellbook!"

That scenario will happen VERY quickly if all you ever do is let the Wizard prepare once and then never let them prepare again.

"That day" refers to day 1 of the book being missing for days or however long, not "book gets stolen every day."