Disjunction vs Otiluke's Suppressing Field

[Anthrowhale]

Suppose you cast Otilukes Suppressing Field:Abjuration (from Complete Mage), then an enemy caster casts Disjunction (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magesDisjunction.htm) targeting you. Is the Disjunction potentially suppressed?

OSF says: "Anyone attempting to cast such a spell in (or into) the area must succed on a caster level check against a DC of 11 + your caster level."

Disjunction says: "... spells ... are separated into their individual components (ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does)..."

There seems no way to resolve both texts when the Disjunction caster loses the caster level check, so resolution requires determining which is more specific.

OSF looks more specific to me. It is certainly the rarer spell, and it was written after Disjunction, so the lack of an exception for Disjunction is telling.

[Darrin]

My take: Before disjunction can put the kibosh on Otiluke's supressing field, the caster has to make the caster check first. If the check is successful, Otiluke's goes *poof*. If the caster level check fails, then anything within the radius of the supressing field can ignore the disjunction.

[Snowbluff]

For the Disjunction to remove the sphere, it would have to be cast into the area of the sphere, right? So the Sphere effect would be active, then the Disjunction would resolve if successful.

EDIT: Swiftbladed.

[kardar233]

Intriguing. I must find a way to combine this with Energy Transformation Field.

[Anthrowhale]

Darrin/Snowbluff's approach matches my thoughts which makes Disjunction less absolute than I previously thought.

There is one other issue with OSF: Abjuration---the spell has an even chance of self-suppression. Perhaps this should be ignored because if the spell suppresses itself then there is nothing suppressing it, so it wouldn't be suppressed, so it would be suppressed, so it wouldn't be, etc... It's a mess.

[Crake]

I would argue that it would be based on where the disjunction's point of origin is. If it is within the field, then yes, the field would suppress it potentially, since it is being cast into the field, but if it is being cast outside of the field, and merely bursting over the field, it would disjoin it without worry, and then proceed to disjoin everything else. Since suppressing field is only a 20ft radius, and disjunction is a 40ft radius, it could quite easily be positioned to still disjoin everyone in the field

I guess for an easier example. If you were suppressing fire spells, and someone cast a fireball into the field, it would have a chance to be suppressed, but if they fired the fireball just outside the field, the fireball would still burst into the field. That's how I'd see it anyway

[Psyren]

I would argue that it would be based on where the disjunction's point of origin is. If it is within the field, then yes, the field would suppress it potentially, since it is being cast into the field, but if it is being cast outside of the field, and merely bursting over the field, it would disjoin it without worry, and then proceed to disjoin everything else. Since suppressing field is only a 20ft radius, and disjunction is a 40ft radius, it could quite easily be positioned to still disjoin everyone in the field

I guess for an easier example. If you were suppressing fire spells, and someone cast a fireball into the field, it would have a chance to be suppressed, but if they fired the fireball just outside the field, the fireball would still burst into the field. That's how I'd see it anyway

This is my take on it. A lot of people forget Disjunction is a burst - you don't (and indeed can't) "target" any creature with it.

[Anthrowhale]

I would argue that it would be based on where the disjunction's point of origin is.

The key question seems to be the definition of 'cast into' from the '(or into)' clause. This also appears in Antimagic field.

In AMF, we have: "An antimagic field suppresses any spell ... used within, brought into, or cast into the area ...". Do you believe a fireball with a point of origin outside the area is suppressed within the AMF? I would. That use does not fit the first clause at all. It doesn't fit the second clause, because nothing is transporting the fireball. So, it seems the third clause must be active. Hence, I think 'cast into' includes the overlap of area spells with an external point of origin, whether burst, line, spread, etc...

There is a secondary way to reason as well. OSF also says "...precast effects make this check when first exposed to your suppressing field." Is an instantaneous spell precast? Can you trigger a contingency based on a burst starting near you? If yes, this directly contradicts. I'd lean towards 'no' for other reasons. But even with 'no', it would seem rather odd if the author intended for instantaneous spells to interact differently from spells of all other durations.