Use of Antimagic Shackles

[Anthrowhale]

BoED has Antimagic Shackles (AMS): "These adamantine manacles fit any Small to Large creature and create an antimagic field to a radius of 5 feet when they are fastened." This has various tactical possibilities that I would like to understand the validity of within the rules.

Note that 5' radius = 4 adjacent squares.

(a) Is AMS a slotted item?
(b) Does AMS need to be fastened to someone to be active?
(c) If an AMS is either fastened to a wrist or held in the hand, can reach be used to center the AMS so that the body is not inside the generated AMF?
(d) Can AMS be hurled as an improvised thrown weapon?

My understanding at the moment:
(a) No. Evidence is provided by "Shackles of Silence" in MIC which take no body slot.
(b) No. Shackles can be fastened without fitting to anything.
(c) Yes, as an attack or a move action (including full attack).
(d) Yes, as an improvised one handed thrown weapon (range 10', standard action), since a weight of 5lbs is very similar to other one handed weapons.

Is this understanding correct or wrong? If so, where and why?

[Slipperychicken]

Within the Custom Item rules, they're about the same price as a continuous AMF.

a) I don't think so. Wearing Gloves of Dexterity should not prevent Antimagic Shackles from functioning. Shackles do not occupy a body slot.

b) I'm AFB now, but I'll check this one in my copy of BoED.

c) By RAW, a weapon remains in your space as long as you hold it. Regardless, any part of your body still within the radius would still be affected, or your 10ft pole, or whatever you're using to extend it. Human arms are only like 3ft long, so this shouldn't work by RAI either. You can drop it into an adjacent space as a free action.

d) Anything you can carry can be an improvised thrown weapon, including Antimagic Shackles. Hence the term "improvised". They're quite expensive to be tossing around without guaranteed retrieval, though.

[Flickerdart]

fas·ten
verb
to attach firmly or securely in place; fix securely to something else.

Shackles that are merely closed are not fastened to anything.

[Psyren]

Why do you think throwing them will affect the target? If you toss your handcuffs at a fleeing felon, does he automatically become restrained? More likely, you'll just bonk him in the head and have to go pick them up, if you hit at all. They're not a pair of bolas or a net.

[hewhosaysfish]

Why do you think throwing them will affect the target? If you toss your handcuffs at a fleeing felon, does he automatically become restrained? More likely, you'll just bonk him in the head and have to go pick them up, if you hit at all. They're not a pair of bolas or a net.

I don't think he's suggesting using the shackles as shackles from a distance but rather using them as an-object-which-continuously-emanates-a-5-foot-anti-magic-field.

[Psyren]

I don't think he's suggesting using the shackles as shackles from a distance but rather using them as an-object-which-continuously-emanates-a-5-foot-anti-magic-field.

Except RAW, they only activate when fastened. So simply tossing them at people is pointless.

[Anthrowhale]

Within the Custom Item rules, they're about the same price as a continuous AMF.


Right.



c) By RAW, a weapon remains in your space as long as you hold it.


Citation? This seems completely implausible to me, because it says fights between adjacent opponents consist of displays of fighting prowess not actually hitting anyone yet somehow inflicting hp damage. Some evidence against: the AntiMagic section in Rules Compendium says:
"A magic weapon ... used to attack a creature inside an antimagic area, gains none of the benefits of its magic properties."



Human arms are only like 3ft long, so this shouldn't work by RAI either.


I'm thinking about a "long arm" graft, which yields a 10' reach.


Shackles that are merely closed are not fastened to anything.

(a) I disagree in the sense that it's not crazy to say "I fasten my watchband to itself".
(b) If that isn't convincing, assume I fasten it to a short 1" diameter stick.


Except RAW, they only activate when fastened. So simply tossing them at people is pointless.

I'm presuming that your interpretation is addressed by either (a) or (b). If not, please explain.

[Psyren]

I'm presuming that your interpretation is addressed by either (a) or (b). If not, please explain.

By RAW, they only "fit any Small to Large creature." fastening them to sticks, themselves, a statute etc. would not work, even if it's something that should logically be the right size.

[Anthrowhale]

By RAW, they only "fit any Small to Large creature." fastening them to sticks, themselves, a statute etc. would not work, even if it's something that should logically be the right size.

RAW says it fits small to large creatures, but that does not exclude the possibility of fitting a stick of halfling arm diameter. Similarly, when I say "my watch fits on my arm", that doesn't mean that it doesn't fit on your arm.

In fact "fits small" implies that it fits a stick of halfling arm diameter.

[Psyren]

Yes, but a stick is not a creature. If you're going to exploit RAW, you open yourself up to it being used against you as well.

To use their field, you need to fasten them; to fasten them, you need a Small or Medium creature to fit them to.

[Hirax]

If AMF shackles could be moved out to a square within reach, then any creature wearing them could just hold them out and suddenly not be affected by them. Which would make using them against the very people they're presumably designed to contain, spellcasters, pointless. They could simply hold them out and teleport away.

Also, fitting sticks is irrelevant due to the shackles explicitly saying they work on creatures. Creatures, in D&D, are anything with a wisdom score (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities), so sticks wouldn't work. This is the same reason disintegrate cannot affect living trees by RAW.

[silverwolfer]

you could wear them, and then become a grappling monk..

[Adamantrue]

Toss them on a Halfling Monk, and then toss the Halfling? I mean, use the Halfling as a ranged weapon?

[Vizzerdrix]

Use Animate Object on several pair and send them out to grapple casters in groups. Or give them to a Justiciar.

[Anthrowhale]

If AMF shackles could be moved out to a square within reach, then any creature wearing them could just hold them out and suddenly not be affected by them.


I expect this would depend on how the shackling is done. Think about handcuffs. There are very ineffective ways to use handcuffs, like applying both ends to the same wrist. Similarly, there are effective ways.



They could simply hold them out and teleport away.


Ouch! With a bad shackling, either (a) arm is left behind by teleporting or (b) nothing happens.



Also, fitting sticks is irrelevant due to the shackles explicitly saying they work on creatures.

In general english, "fit" is just not the same concept as "exclusively fit". A fits B does not imply that A does not fit C.



To use their field, you need to fasten them; to fasten them, you need a Small or Medium creature to fit them to.

A fits B does not imply that A does not fit C. That's just not the way english works.

[Psyren]

A fits B does not imply that A does not fit C. That's just not the way english works.

"X fits creatures = X fits objects" is not the way RAW works.

[Hirax]

I expect this would depend on how the shackling is done. Think about handcuffs. There are very ineffective ways to use handcuffs, like applying both ends to the same wrist. Similarly, there are effective ways.



Ouch! With a bad shackling, either (a) arm is left behind by teleporting or (b) nothing happens.



In general english, "fit" is just not the same concept as "exclusively fit". A fits B does not imply that A does not fit C.



A fits B does not imply that A does not fit C. That's just not the way english works.

Either demonstrate incontrovertible rules citations that there's a RAW way to do what you want to do, or else everyone is probably going to side with the interpretation that doesn't make the shackles useless. Either they can be held out as far as a creature's reach, in which case for prisoners they're useless, or they can't. Your invented distinction means nothing, there's no RAW check or method to see whether they're "effectively" shackled. There is no such thing as a partial teleport. If there is not an AMF in your square, then you can teleport out (or shapechange if you're a lycanthrope), and take your entire body with you, there's no RAW support for your claim of an arm being left behind. Also, your last sentence is flatly untrue in this context. This all smacks of wishful thinking, you don't get to invent or extend existing rules into spaces where there are none just because you think it makes sense to do so. Edit: Why fuss over putting them on a stick, anyway? Toss a halfling wearing them instead, or a dog. In fact, a dog would be your best option, because they're loyal and trainable. You could train it to follow whoever it's thrown at.

[Cruiser1]

The Antimagic Shackles from BoED are a poor choice to keep a spellcaster bound. You can get out with a DC 27 Escape Artist check. (In comparison, standard manacles (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#manaclesandManaclesMasterwork ) are DC 30, while masterwork manacles are DC 35.) For their price and being made out of adamantine, I'd expect Antimagic Shackles would be at least DC 35 if not 40.

You can make a DC 27 Escape Artist check with DEX 20, a mere 2 ranks in Escape Artist, and taking 20. Since a check only takes 1 minute, if the BBEG ever uses Antimagic Shackles on you and walks away from the dungeon laughing, in 20 minutes you've escaped and are bringing him to justice. :smallbiggrin:

[dextercorvia]

The Antimagic Shackles from BoED are a poor choice to keep a spellcaster bound. You can get out with a DC 27 Escape Artist check. (In comparison, standard manacles (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#manaclesandManaclesMasterwork ) are DC 30, while masterwork manacles are DC 35.) For their price and being made out of adamantine, I'd expect Antimagic Shackles would be at least DC 35 if not 40.

You can make a DC 27 Escape Artist check with DEX 20, a mere 2 ranks in Escape Artist, and taking 20. Since a check only takes 1 minute, if the BBEG ever uses Antimagic Shackles on you and walks away from the dungeon laughing, in 20 minutes you've escaped and are bringing him to justice. :smallbiggrin:

He isn't trying to keep a spellcaster bound. He is wearing them like a slotless item of AMF.

[Hirax]

Come to think, I'm not sure I'd freely grant that AMF shackles are slotless. Intuitively they'd be a wrist item, and it was a later formatting decision in 3.5 to specifically list what slot (if any) a magic item used. In the DMG, for instance, wondrous items items don't specify the slot they use, due to the fact that it's generally obvious. This appears to be the case in the BoED too. The shackles in the MIC could just as easily be an anomaly, rather than following some sort of precedent. I'm not willing to cast judgment one way or the other on this one.

[Crasical]

You can make a DC 27 Escape Artist check with DEX 20, a mere 2 ranks in Escape Artist, and taking 20. Since a check only takes 1 minute, if the BBEG ever uses Antimagic Shackles on you and walks away from the dungeon laughing, in 20 minutes you've escaped and are bringing him to justice. :smallbiggrin:

:smallconfused: I'm aware that the shackles are quite expensive and mostly for higher-level play, but do your wizards routinely have 20 dex and cross-class skill ranks in escape artist?

Also, if the shackles must be worn to be active, it might behoove you to find some way to obtain a monk's Unarmed damage progression so that you can just kick people instead. You'll be like Cody from Street Fighter.

[Marnath]

BoED has Antimagic Shackles (AMS): "These adamantine manacles fit any Small to Large creature and create an antimagic field to a radius of 5 feet when they are fastened." This has various tactical possibilities that I would like to understand the validity of within the rules.

Note that 5' radius = 4 adjacent squares.

(a) Is AMS a slotted item?
(b) Does AMS need to be fastened to someone to be active?
(c) If an AMS is either fastened to a wrist or held in the hand, can reach be used to center the AMS so that the body is not inside the generated AMF?
(d) Can AMS be hurled as an improvised thrown weapon?

My understanding at the moment:
(a) No. Evidence is provided by "Shackles of Silence" in MIC which take no body slot.
(b) No. Shackles can be fastened without fitting to anything.
(c) Yes, as an attack or a move action (including full attack).
(d) Yes, as an improvised one handed thrown weapon (range 10', standard action), since a weight of 5lbs is very similar to other one handed weapons.

Is this understanding correct or wrong? If so, where and why?

My understanding is:
(a) By the rules, no slot is specified. Although I would call it a wrist slot item personally.
(b) Yes, they have to be worn to activate.
(c) Yes, if you have a ten foot reach you could be standing outside of the effect since the rules state AMF only affects parts of creatures that are inside it.
(d) No, because as stated it has to be worn to turn on.

If you wanted to wear them then you should know making full attacks with shackles on would be very awkward. If you're alright with the custom item rules already(or your DM is, if you are not the DM) then I would suggest just making them bracers, no chain connecting them. Taking up the wrist slot is hardly an issue since anything you could be wearing there would be inside the AMF anyway. Either that, or make it some sort of thrown weapon so that it can be active all the time, not just when wielded. This also would negate the -4 improvised penalty.

[Hirax]

(c) Yes, if you have a ten foot reach you could be standing outside of the effect since the rules state AMF only affects parts of creatures that are inside it.


Nope, you only need a 5' reach to stand outside the effect, if you want to believe the shackles work that way. A 5' radius by RAW is equivalent to 10' square. Therefore, by RAW, there will always be a diagonal space within your reach that you could theoretically push the shackles out to in order to not be affected by them. Which is why I believe that interpretation to be wrong until rock solid evidence is shown to the contrary, otherwise the shackles are useless for containing a spellcaster that can cast teleport, or shapechanger that can just transform.

[Marnath]

Nope, you only need a 5' reach to stand outside the effect, if you want to believe the shackles work that way. A 5' radius by RAW is equivalent to 10' square. Therefore, by RAW, there will always be a diagonal space within your reach that you could theoretically push the shackles out to in order to not be affected by them. Which is why I believe that interpretation to be wrong until rock solid evidence is shown to the contrary, otherwise the shackles are useless for containing a spellcaster that can cast teleport, or shapechanger that can just transform.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I was referring to the long arms graft he's getting for his character, which even by RAW would put the ends of his hands far enough from his body that the 5 foot field would not cover him. It would only come up to his elbows or something.

[Hirax]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I was referring to the long arms graft he's getting for his character, which even by RAW would put the ends of his hands far enough from his body that the 5 foot field would not cover him. It would only come up to his elbows or something.

And I'm saying you don't need 10' reach for that. You only need 5' reach to do that.

[Marnath]

And I'm saying you don't need 10' reach for that. You only need 5' reach to do that.

Nuh uh. If you have 5 foot reach, your hands are in the space next to you. As has been pointed out, a 5 foot radius is two squares. So the square adjacent to you where your hands are, and the space you're standing in. If you have ten foot reach, it would be in the squares two away from you and adjacent.

[Hirax]

http://imageshack.us/a/img4/8701/shackles.jpg

If you reach to square 7, the AMF is no longer affecting you. Red is where the AMF affects normally, green is where it affects if you reach to square 7, and the star is a medium or small creature. In retrospect, it would have been better to stripe square 7 rather than split it in half, but what the heck, it wouldn't be a paint drawing if it weren't in some way hideously flawed.

Edit: of course, I still don't believe that the shackles ever leave the wearer's square. But if you want to believe that they can, then this rendering is the reality.

[Marnath]

If you reach to square 7, the AMF is no longer affecting you. Red is where the AMF affects normally, green is where it affects if you reach to square 7, and the star is a medium or small creature. In retrospect, it would have been better to stripe square 7 rather than split it in half, but what the heck, it wouldn't be a paint drawing if it weren't in some way hideously flawed.

Edit: of course, I still don't believe that the shackles ever leave the wearer's square. But if you want to believe that they can, then this rendering is the reality.

If we're making the assumption that the shackles are in grid space 7, then 2,6,10,11 and 12 should also be. I've been measuring from the center of the square since it's an item and not a stand-alone spell.

[Hirax]

Ok, I see where you were going wrong. Well, aside from allowing the shackles to leave the wearer's square in the first place. :smallbiggrin: I don't believe it ever states anywhere that an attended item is ever occupying, entering, or exiting a square other than the one its owner is in. Even the Rules Compendium quote Anthrowhale cites doesn't say this. On its face, it would intuitively be a corollary to that quote, that a weapon in is the AMF's square vis-a-vis verisimilitude, but that's not necessarily the case for the purposes of rules. It's entirely possible that the intended reading is that for the purposes of location, an attended item is only ever in its owner's square, and attacking into an AMF has that one specific interaction with an item. I don't have a hard time believing that the rules are written in such a way as to make it so you don't need to keep track of what squares attended items are in, in addition to people. Edit: Plus, that interpretation makes AMF shackles not useless for their intended purpose, as mentioned.

[dextercorvia]

Wait. Wouldn't his interpretation make them worthless for his intended use as well? He gets right up next to the mage, who can then just reach outside the AMF and suddenly be able to cast a spell?

[Battleship789]

Wait. Wouldn't his interpretation make them worthless for his intended use as well? He gets right up next to the mage, who can then just reach outside the AMF and suddenly be able to cast a spell?

Yes, that would be correct.

[Hirax]

I believe he wants the mage to be affected by the shackles on defense, during his action. Otherwise the mage could 5' step out anyway.

[dextercorvia]

I believe he wants the mage to be affected by the shackles on defense, during his action. Otherwise the mage could 5' step out anyway.

He's got thicket of blades to prevent the 5' step.

[Hirax]

Ah, right. I should have figured to consult the other thread for more details.

[Anthrowhale]

not the way RAW works.

Do you have a citation? The rules are written in english, so the normal use of english definitions should apply, unless they are overridden by an explicit rule.


Either demonstrate incontrovertible rules citations that there's a RAW way to do what you want to do, or else everyone is probably going to side with the interpretation that doesn't make the shackles useless.

Sorry, I don't follow why Shackles are useless under my interpretation. Just to make sure we are on the same page, this is
shackles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetters) according to wikipedia: essentially handcuffs for the legs. I've also seen the term used to describe systems with 3 or 4 attachment points, one to each arm and leg. Used properly, the reach and teleport approach appears very difficult and/or impossible. Used improperly, with all attachments on a long arm, it seems plausible.



there's no RAW support for your claim of an arm being left behind.


There is RAW support in the AMF description: the portion of spells inside an AMF are suppressed, and the portions of body outside of an AMF are not affected by it.



Also, your last sentence is flatly untrue in this context.


Can you express why? "My watch fits on my arm doesn't imply my watch doesn't fit on your arm." I don't see how you can read this as flatly untrue.

3584]http://imageshack.us/a/img4/8701/shackles.jpg
[/QUOTE]

A helpful image, thanks. Reach generally allows you reach into a square, but not across it as far as I know. Consequently, a conservative interpretation is that you can center the AMF on points that can be reached across. Using this, a normal 5' reach centers the AMF at the 6,7,10,11 intersection, and a 10' reach can center at the 3,4,7,8 intersection. Again, I'm not advocating the use of reach with the shackles attached to multiple limbs.


(d) No, because as stated it has to be worn to turn on.


I'm still unclear on whether "fastened" means "worn". There are many shackles, particularly ones of older designs, that can be fastened (i.e. locked) without being worn.


Wait. Wouldn't his interpretation make them worthless for his intended use as well? He gets right up next to the mage, who can then just reach outside the AMF and suddenly be able to cast a spell?

I believe hands are necessary but not sufficient for spellcasting: you also need the memorized spell. Presumably, that means you also need a head outside the AMF. With head, hands, and any other explicit components outside the AMF, I think it's entirely reasonable to be able to cast a spell while partially affected.

[dextercorvia]

The problem with your interpretation of Hirax's diagram is that the AMF is centered on the shackles, which means that the possessor of the shackles can choose a grid intersection adjacent to their position to center the effect on. So, Hirax is correct that if your idea is correct, they would normally be useless against any creature that can reach out of its own square.

So, what you are saying is a Wizard with a bite attack can reach out of the AMF to cast? Do the hokey pokey.

The part in the description of AMF only refers to creatures who are large enough that they aren't entirely covered by the area of the AMF. You don't have that problem. If your arm could spend a significant amount of time in that other space, then you would be occupying that space.

[Hirax]

Can you express why? "My watch fits on my arm doesn't imply my watch doesn't fit on your arm." I don't see how you can read this as flatly untrue.



It doesn't imply that it wouldn't fit on my arm, but more importantly, it doesn't imply that it would, either. You cannot claim that AMF shackles fit on objects due to objects not being specifically excluded by the text. Otherwise you could just as easily claim that they fit around a huge creature because they're not specifically invalid. And in fact it is entirely plausible that being around a creature is a design choice to activate the shackles, that way they won't accidentally activate when it isn't desired (IE, fastening them to a backpack to carry, or a belt if they're the lightweight kind in the first picture on that wiki page). RAW is 100% against you here, and I'd say verisimilitude is only 50% with you, which makes verisimilitude not a worthwile avenue to argue about with regards to this point. Not that verisimilitude is ever a compelling reason to ignore RAW.



The problem with your interpretation of Hirax's diagram is that the AMF is centered on the shackles, which means that the possessor of the shackles can choose a grid intersection adjacent to their position to center the effect on. So, Hirax is correct that if your idea is correct, they would normally be useless against any creature that can reach out of its own square.

So, what you are saying is a Wizard with a bite attack can reach out of the AMF to cast? Do the hokey pokey.

The part in the description of AMF only refers to creatures who are large enough that they aren't entirely covered by the area of the AMF. You don't have that problem. If your arm could spend a significant amount of time in that other space, then you would be occupying that space.

Bingo. Otherwise you'd have to keep track of anyone standing at the edge of a fireball, and whether they have any arms, legs, or items reaching into the fireball's AoE. Plus, the manacles make no mention of restricting reach. I agree that there are situations where a DM should houserule that reach is restricted, depending on the size of the creature, how well the manacles fit, the exact construction and application of the manacles, and other such details, but houserules aren't relevant here, especially with the amount of potential variables.

But all that doesn't really matter, because I still don't believe that the shackles, or any part of a person ever technically leave the space they occupy for the purposes of game rules, and I don't have anything to add with regards to what I already wrote (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13903985&postcount=29).

[Anthrowhale]

It doesn't imply that it wouldn't fit on my arm, but more importantly, it doesn't imply that it would, either.


A more extreme version of this implied by your position is: The item fits on a halfling, but it does not fit on the halfling after it is turned to stone?



You cannot claim that AMF shackles fit on objects due to objects not being specifically excluded by the text.


But fit is a physical property. An object of the requisite size and shape should substitute, right?



Otherwise you could just as easily claim that they fit around a huge creature because they're not specifically invalid.


Huge is different though, because the physical structure of a huge creature is not optimized for fitting the shackles.



And in fact it is entirely plausible that being around a creature is a design choice to activate the shackles, that way they won't accidentally activate when it isn't desired (IE, fastening them to a backpack to carry, or a belt if they're the lightweight kind in the first picture on that wiki page).


This makes more sense as an explanation than failure to fit.



RAW is 100% against you here


I still don't see this. Do you have a reference? Is there a rule which says "everything not explicitly allowed is disallowed"? Where?

[Hirax]

A more extreme version of this implied by your position is: The item fits on a halfling, but it does not fit on the halfling after it is turned to stone?



But fit is a physical property. An object of the requisite size and shape should substitute, right?



Huge is different though, because the physical structure of a huge creature is not optimized for fitting the shackles.



This makes more sense as an explanation than failure to fit.



I still don't see this. Do you have a reference? Is there a rule which says "everything not explicitly allowed is disallowed"? Where?

Again, it says it fits creatures, so no, it doesn't fit any object, regardless of how similar in shape it is to a creature or its limbs (irrelevant quibble, a flesh to stone victim does not become an object, just mindless). Creatures is a defined game term (PHB 306, and MM 312 has helpful info under the wisdom and charisma entries of nonabilities for how to tell them apart from objects), just like sizes are a defined game term. You do not get to claim one of those terms is more important than the other. If you want say it can affect objects, then you have to also say it can affect creatures of other sizes that have appendages it could fit (with all the weird anatomies out there, I'm sure there's something, or if you were desperate, I suppose you could mutilate a huge or larger creature until they fit by making piercing holes (like for earrings), then fastening the manacles to the piercing holes while binding the other limbs some other way for security). You do not get to claim that because certain objects share similarities with certain creatures that something that affects creatures could also affect those objects. It makes just as much sense to claim that charm person could affect elans (an aberration), despite them being virtually indistinguishable from humans in many ways, including appearance (because they basically are humans, see their fluff, XPH 196, not all details are printed in the SRD - not to get sidetracked too much, of course).

You keep trying to inject verisimilitude into the rules, which is generally an exercise in futility, especially when there's no ambiguity in how the rules function in this case. It doesn't matter whether that clashes with what you or I think "fit" should mean. Whatever fit means for the purposes of these shackles, apparently only creatures of small to large size are able to do it. It's left to the reader to fill in why that might be the case (which is fine since it's only fluff, not crunch), and there are a number of plausible reasons one could come up with. Remember that most wondrous items are said to magically adjust (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#sizeAndMagicItems) to fit, perhaps only creatures trigger the fitting function. As mentioned, this could be a intentional safety mechanism to prevent accidental activation, or because the parameters built into the manacles don't understand how to fit to an object and simply fail to run, like a broken java script.

As to your last point, no, I don't have a citation, and I'm not going to look; if the opposite were true (everything not explicitly disallowed is allowed), then the game would be anarchy. :xykon: It says that wizards draw spells from the sorc/wiz spell list, but if the previous maxim were true, that wouldn't preclude the possibility of them drawing them from the wu jen spell list too (or any other), because it's not specifically prohibited. It would be worth making a thread where it was assumed that was true just to see all the crazy abuses people could come up with. It's a much simpler and saner proposition that when anything says it can affect certain things, it means only those things. If it meant that it could affect more things, why wouldn't it have just mentioned so? Or if it were meant to be extremely broad, it should instead have been written to say that it affects everything with certain exceptions.

[Anthrowhale]

Ok. I'm converging towards a custom continuous item of AMF given the above (and as several recommended).