Getting My Arti-Facts Straight [3.5]

[Duke of Urrel]

The Antimagic Field spell "has no effect" on artifacts, and the Mage's Disjunction spell has only a 1% chance to reduce an artifact to a non-magical item. However, I still have some questions about artifacts and their effects.

1. Can the lowly Dispel Magic spell make an artifact nonfunctional for 1d4 rounds? The RAW don't prohibit this, but it seems imbalanced for it to be possible. [Edit: Yes, the RAW do prohibit this. I just checked. Sorry about that.]

2. Once an artifact has been activated and magic has been discharged from it – for example, once the Hold Portal spell has been discharged from a Staff of the Magi – is this magic dispellable?

3. Once an artifact has been activated and magic has been discharged from it – again, take as an example the Hold Portal spell discharged from a Staff of the Magi – is this magic suppressed inside an Antimagic Field?

4. If magic discharged from an artifact is not dispellable, then is it disjoinable by means of the Mage's Disjunction spell? In other words, can this spell "end" a magical effect created with the help of an artifact "as a dispel magic spell does"?

5. Or does the Mage's Disjunction spell have only a 1% chance per caster level to "end" any magic that has been created with the help of an artifact?

I'm working on a general understanding of the "levels" of magic in D&D. I believe there are three levels:

A. the basic level of spells and spell-like abilities, which I'll call "preternatural" here,

B. the elevated level of "supernatural" magic, and

C. the supreme level of "deific" magic, creatable only by deities.

Artifacts, in my understanding, are created only by very powerful magic now lost to mortals, probably with the help or the interference of deities. And the magic they contain is in some respects more resistant to deactivation (i.e., dispelling, suppression, or disjunction) than ordinary preternatural or even supernatural magic. But is the magic of an artifact really deific itself? Or does the magic inside an artifact become more ordinary once it leaves the artifact? And if so, should we regard this departed magic as supernatural (that is, not dispellable, but suppressible) or merely preternatural (that is, normally dispellable and suppressible)?

I appeal to the wisdom of the Playground, which has so often helped me in the past!

[Psyren]

The answer to your question depends on the artifact itself. Staff of the Magi is an odd example since it is a staff; like all staffs, it is a spell trigger item and so it contains magic spells rather than more artifact-level powers like a Deck of Many Things.

My reading is that the staff itself cannot be suppressed, but the spells within it can once they "come out." What this means is that you can activate the staff in an AMF -if you do so, the spell will be suppressed, but remain active (if it has a duration), so that if the AMF is removed then the spell will immediately come into effect for the remainder of its time.

This also means that you can retributive strike in an AMF - this is a power of the artifact itself, rather than any of the spells inside it, so this detonation will resolve normally.

Dispel magic cannot suppress the staff, but it will dispel any of its powers. Note however that the minimum CL for any of the staff's spells is 20, so it's not exactly easy.

Disjunction will instantly end any of the staff's spells, and has a chance of depowering the staff entirely.



But is the magic of an artifact really deific itself? Or does the magic inside an artifact become more ordinary once it leaves the artifact?

As above, that depends on the artifact itself. Staff of the Magi contains spells, so they are treated as spells. Similarly, a Book of Infinite Spells would be usable in an AMF (and the page-turning power would be active), but the spells themselves would likely be suppressed once cast. In both cases, the artifact's power is primarily to let you access the given spells - the spells themselves follow the regular rules.

A Deck however would be completely unaffected by an AMF, because no actual spells are involved (even in cases where the effect is similar to an existing spell.) If you pulled Star inside an AMF, you would gain the bonus, and if you pulled Donjon you would vanish.

[Telonius]

Dispel (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm) and Greater Dispel (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagicGreater.htm) don't work: "Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this."

For Staff of the Magi, the rules aren't really specified. Personally I'd rule that it still has abilities even if all of its charges are spent. I would say that this means the Staff is still an Artifact, and can't be dispelled like it were a normal item. But the magic effects created by the Staff are dispellable as normal, just like they were cast by a level 20 Wizard, or higher if the Wizard wielding it happens to be Epic. (Note that Epic spells aren't automatically suppressed by an AMF (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spellsIntro.htm#dispellingEpicSpellsAndAntimagicFi eld), but the Staff itself doesn't allow for any Epic effects to be created through it).

Antimagic Field wouldn't suppress the Staff's abilities (Spell Resistance, Absorption, Retributive Strike). But I'd rule that the spell effects created by the Staff would be suppressed, just as though a Wizard20 had cast it.

[The honest illusionist]

The Antimagic Field spell "has no effect" on artifacts, and the Mage's Disjunction spell has only a 1% chance to reduce an artifact to a non-magical item. However, I still have some questions about artifacts and their effects.


You're underestimating the absurd power of a 9th level spell. That's a 1% chance per caster level. Usually that means a minimum chance of 17%, and with epic characters or specially optimized builds that chance could be much higher.

Of course, there is a possible drawback, if you are 'successful', of losing all spell casting ability, forever, without the intervention of a diety. It's only a DC 25 Will save, but that's a doozy of a self-inflicted save or be screwed.

[Duke of Urrel]

Thanks to both of you for the comments. It makes sense to me that any spell-like effect with a caster level, even one as high as 20, should be dispellable. The very existence of a caster level should have been a clue.

I like the distinction between magic inside an artifact and magic outside, Psyren, and I'm grateful to have some confirmation that this distinction is not at odds with the rules. It's a very convenient distinction that eliminates some of my more far-reaching questions, which comes as a relief.

It occurs to me that perhaps not only the Staff of the Magi is an odd case. Maybe every artifact is an odd case in and of itself, and it is pointless to try to make general rules about their effects – or at least about their spell-like effects. Just as ordinary spells are generally dispellable, but specific spells are not, in like manner spell-like effects, even those of artifacts, are generally dispellable, but specific spell-like effects are not. Am I getting this right?

It's good to know that epic spells, as a general rule, are harder to suppress in an Antimagic Field than ordinary spells. Thanks for the info, Telonius!

So maybe there should be four levels of magic in my general scheme: A. preternatural, B. epic, C. supernatural, and D. deific. Levels B., C., and D. may overlap.

As for artifacts, let me try to summarize things again.

An artifact's functionality can't be disrupted for 1d4 rounds by the Dispel Magic spell, and it can't be suppressed inside an Antimagic Field. It's even very difficult to disjoin an artifact from the magic it contains, which suggests that deities were involved in creating it.

However, despite all this, the magic contained inside an artifact doesn't necessarily belong to any "level." Instead, this has an indeterminate status, or rather, different magical functions of an artifact may have different "levels."

1. On the one hand, if an artifact has any unique function, that is, any function that is not spell-like, it should as a general rule work uninhibited inside an Antimagic Field.

2. On the other hand, if an artifact has a spell-like function, this function still works like a spell unless otherwise indicated in the artifact's description. This means that although you may still be able to activate this function inside an Antimagic Field, nothing happens physically, except that until the field is removed, the duration of the effect ticks away. Similarly, if you discharge a spell-like effect from an artifact somewhere outside an Antimagic Field, you may not be able to affect or target anything inside this field. Finally, any spell-like effect that you discharge from an artifact can be dispelled, just like the ordinary spell it resembles, unless otherwise indicated in the artifact's description.

Does everybody agree with this description (which is basically my own attempt at a paraphrase of Psyren's and Telonius's comments), or are there still some points of disagreement?

[Duke of Urrel]

You're underestimating the absurd power of a 9th level spell. That's a 1% chance per caster level. Usually that means a minimum chance of 17%, and with epic characters or specially optimized builds that chance could be much higher.

Of course, there is a possible drawback, if you are 'successful', of losing all spell casting ability, forever, without the intervention of a diety. It's only a DC 25 Will save, but that's a doozy of a self-inflicted save or be screwed.

Thanks for your correction, Honest Illusionist! You're right, I mis-stated and understated the power of the Mage's Disjunction spell.

[Psyren]

2. On the other hand, if an artifact has a spell-like function, this function still works like a spell unless otherwise indicated in the artifact's description.

I would be even more specific than that:

"If an artifact casts a spell, or if an artifact grants the user the ability to cast a spell, that spell is subject to all the normal rules for spells."

"Spell-like" is too vague in this context. Some artifact powers are very close to spells - e.g. the Moon card in a Deck of Many Things grants wishes identically to how the spell does. But the card itself will function in an AMF, even in cases where the actual Wish spell may not.

For example, if you found yourself locked in an antimagic jail cell, and pulled a card from the Deck in desperation, getting the Moon - you could use your wish to be transported away from there.

[Duke of Urrel]

I would be even more specific than that:

"If an artifact casts a spell, or if an artifact grants the user the ability to cast a spell, that spell is subject to all the normal rules for spells."

"Spell-like" is too vague in this context. Some artifact powers are very close to spells - e.g. the Moon card in a Deck of Many Things grants wishes identically to how the spell does. But the card itself will function in an AMF, even in cases where the actual Wish spell may not.

For example, if you found yourself locked in an antimagic jail cell, and pulled a card from the Deck in desperation, getting the Moon - you could use your wish to be transported away from there.

Your point is well taken. How about replacing the term "spell-like effect" with "effect that has the same name as a spell and is nowhere distinguished from it"?

I know; that wordy phrase doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. But I want to maintain a distinction between spells and the effects of magic items that are named after spells. In the case of a magic scroll, potion, wand, or staff, this may not be an important distinction, because these are basically spell-storage devices. However, in other cases, and most particularly in the case of artifacts, I think the distinction between (on the one hand) spells and (on the other hand) spell-like effects that are named after spells, but may be different in some ways, is important to maintain. At least, caution is advised.

Here's an example of what I mean. I recently started a discussion about the Sequester spell and whether the True Seeing spell defeats it. (It's here:http://http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15750379#post15750379) At the end of the discussion, I (and others) concluded that the True Seeing spell doesn't defeat the Sequester spell, but that the Gem of Seeing does, even though the effect of this wondrous item is otherwise the same as the True Seeing spell.

I should also lengthen the list of functions artifacts may have that are not spell-like (or spells) at all. These include not only the "unique" functions mentioned above, but many functions common to lesser magic items, such as enhancement bonuses, deflection bonuses, et cetera. Basically, anything an artifact has that is obviously not a spell-like function (or not a spell) should work inside an Antimagic Field, even though the same function in a lesser magic item would be suppressed. Does this make sense?

[Psyren]

Your point is well taken. How about replacing the term "spell-like effect" with "effect that has the same name as a spell and is nowhere distinguished from it"?

Just replace it with "spell." Much simpler.


Gem of Seeing isn't really relevant - it beats Sequester because of a weakness in the Sequester spell itself, i.e. a loose reading of "device" means that any magic item containing a divination can beat a Sequester. It's not due to some inherent quality of wondrous items, artifacts etc.

Your link is broken so I can't follow it, but I would wager that is what those on the Gem side are saying.