[PF] AMF and Forcecage

[Frosty]

So...a Forcecage is similar in effect to a Wall of Force, and WoFs are specifically immune to AMF. The OOTS comic aside (The Giant may not follow RAW to allow for a better story), can someone negate a Forcecage by casting AMF while inside one?

Relevant, easy links:
Forcecage (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/forcecage)
Wall o' Force (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/w/wall-of-force)
AMF (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/antimagic-field)

Not that it'll matter (i think), but this is PF instead of 3.5

[Deophaun]

Either would be reasonable interpretations.

AMF states "Certain spells, such as wall of force..." By that, tt's not a comprehensive list, and forcecage basically copy-pastes the text from wall of force into its description, so it could be interpreted to be "as wall of force."

However, a very strict reading would say that AMF works on forcecage because neither forcecage nor AMF specify forcecage as an exception.

My verdict: ask your DM.

[Frosty]

So RAW isn't clear?

[Erik Vale]

It is deliberately unclear.

[BWR]

Since Forcecage was not listed in the exceptions, I ruled that AMF can suppress it. Also, I am seriously considering allowing it to suppress WoFo, PW and PS as well.

Anyway, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103407)'s another discussion on the subject.

The one thread about this on the Paizo forums I could find had one reply, where a random poster claimed AMF would not affect FC, because of the use of "wall of force". Personally, if not capitalized, I tend to treat lower case phrases as descriptions of effects but not necessarily identical to upper case phrases with identical wording.
E.g. if the dungeon has a system of vents spewing out gas which is ignited and shaped like a wall, and the flavor text says "the PCs are now surrounded by walls of fire", I do not interpret that as meaning the fiery walls are identical to the Wall of Fire spell.

[ericgrau]

It's similar to wall of force in a few ways, but it isn't specifically the same as a wall of force or even similar to a wall of force in general. So by strict RAW AMF stops force cage. But since the descriptions in both AMF and forcecage are not all-encompasing and since a DM might rule that a wall of force (i.e., a wall made of force) and a wall of force are the same thing, it is possible that an AMF does not affect force cage.

It's a matter of where do you draw the line between concept and mechanics. On one hand you can get super literal with rules and do things that fly in the face of every concept the rule is supposed to represent, like healing by drowning. And on the other hand there may be specific mechanics, like where large is supposed to be different from Large, for the mechanics to work.

An AMF probably does suppress a forcecage because everything else in the PHB that's not affected is listed. It would have been easy enough to also say otherwise in either the AMF or forcecage description. But it's hard to say and easy to not notice, because if this is so they couldn't be bothered to write "walls made of force" rather than wall of force. It would be like a module that referred to a battlefield full of fireballs. Even if it's not italicized in D&D you'd have to ask, "Wait... do you mean explosions or spells?" And, annoying as it may be, many rules in D&D expect you to refer to other rules without giving the slightest clarification within their own rules section.

FWIW the Giant had an AMF suppress a forcecage and there was a big forum debate over it.

[Psyren]

I would allow an AMF to suppress the "lattice" formation of Forcecage but not the "solid box" formation. That would also fit with what the Giant did.

[Frosty]

I would allow an AMF to suppress the "lattice" formation of Forcecage but not the "solid box" formation. That would also fit with what the Giant did.Why the distinction?

[ericgrau]

Ya his reasoning was basically that forcecage is not wall of force, it's forcecage. You personally could still decide that forcecage walls are walls of force and bars are not.

[Zubrowka74]

And why is WoF an exception ?

[Frosty]

And why is WoF an exception ?
The AMF description specifically says that "Certain spells, such as wall of force...remain unaffected by antimagic field."

So the question really is how similar are WoF and Forcecage. AMF also does not affect Prismatic Wall and Prismatic Sphere, and I'd say that a Prismatic Sphere is just a really advance Prismatic Wall in a sense (it IS a higher level spell for a reason).

[shadow_archmagi]

I would say that it does not suppress it. Forcecages are made of force. Wall of force demonstrates that force can survive in an antimagic field. Might as well make it thematically consistent and have force do its force thing even in AMFs.

[Frosty]

Then is Otiluke's Resilient Sphere (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/resilient-sphere) also immune to AMF?

[Zubrowka74]

The AMF description specifically says that "Certain spells, such as wall of force...remain unaffected by antimagic field."

I know. My question was rather "What's the logic behind making an exception of WoF? Why this one and not Forcecage?"

[Segev]

From a RAW perspective, an argument for "solid forcecage blocks; bars forcecage does not" could be constructed based on AMF being an emanation, and the solid version of Forcecage blocking line of effect. Since it blocks it before it gets "to" the Forcecage wall (that is, it blocks it on the surface, not within), the force effect is never inside the AMF's emanation. But with the bars, the bars are within the emanation because it extends behind them.

That is a very pedantic and picky reading, however.

A fluff explanation could be constructed based on completeness of mystic barriers and the fact that a scratch in a magic circle lets out demons, too.

[AstralFire]

From a RAW perspective, an argument for "solid forcecage blocks; bars forcecage does not" could be constructed based on AMF being an emanation, and the solid version of Forcecage blocking line of effect. Since it blocks it before it gets "to" the Forcecage wall (that is, it blocks it on the surface, not within), the force effect is never inside the AMF's emanation. But with the bars, the bars are within the emanation because it extends behind them.

That is a very pedantic and picky reading, however.

A fluff explanation could be constructed based on completeness of mystic barriers and the fact that a scratch in a magic circle lets out demons, too.

Damnit, I've been swordsage'd.

Anyway, those two explanations are basically the same one anyway, just looking at it from two different sides.

[Frosty]

But according to that explanation, Resilient Sphere is also immune to AMF?

Also, in PF, you're Ninja'ed not Swordsaged :smallwink: If you include DSP's Path of Way, you can be Stalkered I guess.

[AstralFire]

But according to that explanation, Resilient Sphere is also immune to AMF?

Also, in PF, you're Ninja'ed not Swordsaged :smallwink: If you include DSP's Path of Way, you can be Stalkered I guess.

Ugh... just noticed this is a PF thread. Failed my spot check.

Anyway, at a thematic level, it makes sense for Resilient Sphere to be treated the same as these others. I personally go for "Anti-Magic Field kills all of them" though.

[Frosty]

Ugh... just noticed this is a PF thread. Failed my spot check.

Anyway, at a thematic level, it makes sense for Resilient Sphere to be treated the same as these others. I personally go for "Anti-Magic Field kills all of them" though.
1) Technically, as this is PF, you failed a Perception check not a Spot check :smallbiggrin:

2) Why would you personally say that AMF kills all of them, even WoF?

[Zubrowka74]

1) Technically, as this is PF, you failed a Perception check not a Spot check :smallbiggrin:

So he failed a Knowledge check as well!

[Frosty]

Yeah, but what knowledge check did he fail? Knowledge (local)?

[AstralFire]

1) Technically, as this is PF, you failed a Perception check not a Spot check :smallbiggrin:

2) Why would you personally say that AMF kills all of them, even WoF?

Straight-up houserule. From a fluff standpoint, I'm not sold on an effect called "anti-magic field" that allows a blatantly magical wall of force to persist. From a balance standpoint, I do a lot to neuter casters (like SR being switched to 'on' for every targeted spell except for fire/acid/electricity/cold/sonic direct damage spells.)

[Zubrowka74]

Yeah, but what knowledge check did he fail? Knowledge (local)?

Knowledge (DungeonandDragoneering) :D

[Psyren]

Why the distinction?

Two reasons:

1) While the enclosures in both versions are "similar" to a wall of force, only the "windowless cell" version includes language that the walls are specifically constructed out of walls of force.

2) As Segev mentioned, the windowless cell blocks line of effect while the barred cage does not, which means that an emanation can theoretically envelop the former's point of origin without being blocked by the cage walls themselves.

Neither of these is concrete justification, just my way of rationalizing the effect.

[ericgrau]

Then is Otiluke's Resilient Sphere (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/resilient-sphere) also immune to AMF?

In PF, yes it's immune to AMF b/c it works as a wall of force except that it can be hit be a targeted dispel magic.

It's also notable that the text "similar to a wall of force spell" is in PF not 3.5. So in PF you can ask "how similar"?