Another Way for Immunity to Disjunction

[Rubik]

Dealing with Disjunction has been discussed before, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?175988-3-5-Defending-against-Disjunction) but I think I've found another way. Helmed Horrors, from Lost Empires of Faerun, have an ability which grants them immunity to Magic Missile plus three other spells of their choice. Note that it says nothing about targeting or SR. Just flat-out immune, which is better than pretty much every other version of immunity out there, so long as you pick the right spells.

Disjunction should be one. Definitely.

So just use one of the myriad ways of picking up that ability, such as taking levels in illithid savant, using a warforged psion minion to manifest Fusion on a helmed horror, and then eating its brain; or even just Shapechange.

[Crake]

Dealing with Disjunction has been discussed before, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?175988-3-5-Defending-against-Disjunction) but I think I've found another way. Helmed Horrors, from Lost Empires of Faerun, have an ability which grants them immunity to Magic Missile + 3 other spells of their choice. Note that it says nothing about targeting or SR. Just flat-out immune, which is better than pretty much every other version of immunity out there, so long as you pick the right spells.

Disjunction should be one. Definitely.

So just use one of the myriad ways of picking up that ability, such as taking levels in illithid savant, using a warforged psion minion to manifest Fusion on a helmed horror, and then eating its brain, or even just Shapechange.

I personally just prefer an immediate action violet ward from initiate of the sevenfold veil, seems like way less effort.

[Rubik]

I personally just prefer an immediate action violet ward from initiate of the sevenfold veil, seems like way less effort.Note that this is also about the only way to become immune to Wish and Miracle for all their myriad ways to FUBAR you.

Also, my way takes up WAY fewer build resources, especially if you use a few spells (and no class levels).

[Tulya]

Is there a general rule that says equipment and spell effects automatically inherit a creature's special qualities/immunities? Otherwise, Disjunction targeting all magical items and spell effects instead of being creature-targeted might make 'immunity to Disjunction' on a creature pointless.

[Lapsed Pacifist]

[url=http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?175988-3-5-Defending-against-Disjunction]
So just use one of the myriad ways of picking up that ability, such as taking levels in illithid savant, using a warforged psion minion to manifest Fusion on a helmed horror, and then eating its brain; or even just Shapechange.

I'm not sure an animated suit of armour has a brain to eat :P

[Anthrowhale]

Is there a general rule that says equipment and spell effects automatically inherit a creature's special qualities/immunities? Otherwise, Disjunction targeting all magical items and spell effects instead of being creature-targeted might make 'immunity to Disjunction' on a creature pointless.

My understanding is that items would inherit because Disjunction is a spell attack, and the default is that personal items survive spell attacks. Spells have no similar clause, so they go poof.

Rubik's link is missing OSF:abjuration (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?398518-Disjunction-vs-Otiluke-s-Suppressing-Field) which is a soft counter.

[Psyren]

Is there a general rule that says equipment and spell effects automatically inherit a creature's special qualities/immunities? Otherwise, Disjunction targeting all magical items and spell effects instead of being creature-targeted might make 'immunity to Disjunction' on a creature pointless.

This is the biggest problem I see with this trick. Disjunction, unlike dispel magic, is not actually "targeted" - it simply goes off. Nothing about the helmed horror's entry says its buffs or equipment are protected.


I'm not sure an animated suit of armour has a brain to eat :P

That's why he's fusing it with something that has a brain first. Of course, fusion says nothing about special qualities being pooled (only "racial abilities") so its debatable whether this would work, but shapechange should. You can make a helmed horror with the desired immunities yourself, thus causing it to exist, and then transform into it.



Rubik's link is missing OSF:abjuration (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?398518-Disjunction-vs-Otiluke-s-Suppressing-Field) which is a soft counter.

As Crake and I mentioned in that thread, Suppressing Field only works on spells cast into the field. But because Disjunction has a larger area than the field, you can simply cast it outside and strip it.

[Rubik]

This is the biggest problem I see with this trick. Disjunction, unlike dispel magic, is not actually "targeted" - it simply goes off. Nothing about the helmed horror's entry says its buffs or equipment are protected.Whether or not the HH is the one who cast the buffs, they should remain protected. The equipment is considered part of the creature (as it's attended), so it should, as well. After all, targeting the HH with Dispel Magic affects its buffs and equipment, so anything that protects the HH protects those, as well.


That's why he's fusing it with something that has a brain first. Of course, fusion says nothing about special qualities being pooled (only "racial abilities")Really?

...Really?

...Really?

what is this i don't even


As Crake and I mentioned in that thread, Suppressing Field only works on spells cast into the field. But because Disjunction has a larger area than the field, you can simply cast it outside and strip it.Which means you're casting into the field. I honestly don't understand how you could even argue that.

[Psyren]

If the HH is the one who cast the buffs, they should remain protected. The equipment is considered part of the creature (as it's attended), so it should, as well. After all, targeting the HH with Dispel Magic affects its buffs and equipment, so anything that protects the HH protects those, as well.

And that's fine for Dispel Magic, but as previously stated, Disjunction does not target anything. The rule about attended objects only applies to damaging spells. Disjunction explicitly affects "all magic items and effects within radius" without targeting any of them.



Which means you're casting into the field. I honestly don't understand how you could even argue that.

Except you're deliberately NOT casting into the field. And even if you argue that it somehow works, all they have to do is beat a CL check; once the DC is anything other than "no," it can be beaten.


Really?

...Really?

...Really?

what is this i don't even

Yes, really. How do you define a "racial ability?" Especially on a constructed creature with no race?

[Necroticplague]

Yes, really. How do you define a "racial ability?" Especially on a constructed creature with no race?

The creature does have a race. It's race is 'Helmed Horror'. Just as a flesh golem's race is 'Flesh Golem', or how a warforged's race is 'Warforged'.

[Psyren]

The creature does have a race. It's race is 'Helmed Horror'. Just as a flesh golem's race is 'Flesh Golem', or how a warforged's race is 'Warforged'.

Even if you agree to that, the immunities are "chosen by its creator" and specific to each HH. Thus they may not be shared in a fusion.

Not that this really matters with all the other problems presented, I just thought this small digression was interesting.

[Melcar]

Dealing with Disjunction has been discussed before, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?175988-3-5-Defending-against-Disjunction) but I think I've found another way. Helmed Horrors, from Lost Empires of Faerun, have an ability which grants them immunity to Magic Missile plus three other spells of their choice. Note that it says nothing about targeting or SR. Just flat-out immune, which is better than pretty much every other version of immunity out there, so long as you pick the right spells.

Disjunction should be one. Definitely.

So just use one of the myriad ways of picking up that ability, such as taking levels in illithid savant, using a warforged psion minion to manifest Fusion on a helmed horror, and then eating its brain; or even just Shapechange.


See here's the thing. Mordenkainen's Disjunction does not affect creatures, thus immunity is not going to do you good. Magic, that affects magic, thus means that you would have to make your magic immune to disjunction for it to work. That’s why abjuration is such an interesting school of magic. That is as I see it. But then again I seldom read RAW as strictly RAW, since that tends to break the game more often than not, for me at least.

I will say, that my interpretation thus makes disjunction into a very powerful spell, since it just shots down magic, even magic that is said to protect against disjunction. Again as I see it, you put up a magical field that does something, what it does is pretty inconsequential, what is important is whether or not it can withstand disjunction, which basically takes down anything. As I see it, disjunction takes down any magical field which is not specifically build around withstanding disjunction. Being as powerful as the ultimate unraveler is, I would say that within games terms only spells of above 9th levels would have the sufficient depth of enchantment to actually take a full hit of disjunction. This might to some be thought of as a lame way, since then, that single spell can be used to end all magic. And the answer is pretty much yes.

But to answer the above statement. "your" immunity is not going to help, it’s your “magic's” immunity that you have to focus on.

[Sith_Happens]

Is it really that hard to just have a few Craft Contingent Antimagic Fields? Each one gives the Disjunction a multiplicative (100 - CL)% chance to fail.

[Psyren]

Is it really that hard to just have a few Craft Contingent Antimagic Fields? Each one gives the Disjunction a multiplicative (100 - CL)% chance to fail.

But even if that works and blocks the disjunction, now you (along with all your buffs and items) are sitting in an AMF.

[Sith_Happens]

But even if that works and blocks the disjunction, now you (along with all your buffs and items) are sitting in an AMF.

Either dismiss it or have it be Selective.

[Psyren]

Either dismiss it or have it be Selective.

The former is a standard action, while the latter runs into the same targeting problems upthread - a selective AMF may protect you, but what about each of your items and buffs?

[Stegyre]

Either dismiss it or have it be Selective.
I think you have to go with dismissal. If it's selective, then the items are not covered by an AMF and are exposed to the disjunction.

[Anthrowhale]

As Crake and I mentioned in that thread, Suppressing Field only works on spells cast into the field. But because Disjunction has a larger area than the field, you can simply cast it outside and strip it.

The counterargument (which you did not respond to) is that AMF has the same "cast into" language, and everyone agrees that you can't fireball people in an AMF by targeting a point next to the AMF.

[Psyren]

The counterargument (which you did not respond to) is that AMF has the same "cast into" language, and everyone agrees that you can't fireball people in an AMF by targeting a point next to the AMF.

That's because Antimagic has further language that specifically addresses overlapping effects and the point of origin of an area spell. Suppressing Field does not have this language.

[Anthrowhale]

That's because Antimagic has further language that specifically addresses overlapping effects and the point of origin of an area spell. Suppressing Field does not have this language.

Can you be more specific? --- I don't see it (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm).

[Psyren]

Can you be more specific? --- I don't see it (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm).

Rules Compendium 11, the same place that lines like "the field doesn't block line of effect" and the "spells whose point of origin lies within the field are entirely suppressed" language comes from to begin with.

[Sith_Happens]

The former is a standard action, while the latter runs into the same targeting problems upthread - a selective AMF may protect you, but what about each of your items and buffs?

Are you suggesting that a Selective AMF won't protect your items from Disjunction or that Selective Spell won't protect your items from the AMF?:smallconfused:

[Anthrowhale]

Rules Compendium 11, the same place that lines like "the field doesn't block line of effect" and the "spells whose point of origin lies within the field are entirely suppressed" language comes from to begin with.

If I understand correctly, your claim is that you could fireball people in an AMF from 2000 (when the Player's Handbook was first published) to 2007 (when the Rules Compendium was published) so long as the point of origin of the fireball was not inside the AMF, then the Rules Compendium changed the rules so you could not do this.

The Rules Compendium did change some rules, so this is possible. However, I'm not aware of anyone who interpreted AMF in this fashion during that time. I would be interested to know if anyone experienced a sudden significant rules change due to this. Any evidence?

There is a simpler explanation. 'cast into' is never formally defined, but my interpretation of it agrees with the Rules Compendium language about overlapping effects. In this view, the Rules Compendium was just describing what 'cast into' means. In this understanding, the language in Rules Compendium for AMF supports my interpretation of how OSF:Abjuration interacts with Disjunction.

[Psyren]

There is a simpler explanation. 'cast into' is never formally defined, but my interpretation of it agrees with the Rules Compendium language about overlapping effects. In this view, the Rules Compendium was just describing what 'cast into' means. In this understanding, the language in Rules Compendium for AMF supports my interpretation of how OSF:Abjuration interacts with Disjunction.

Mine is even simpler - They spelled it out because it needed clarifying.

But really, whether you believe this line extends to Suppressing Field or not is moot. SF is beaten with a CL check. As I said upthread - once the answer is anything other than "no" you can optimize it to be "yes."

[Cruiser1]

Helmed Horrors, from Lost Empires of Faerun, have an ability which grants them immunity to Magic Missile plus three other spells of their choice. Note that it says nothing about targeting or SR. Disjunction should be one.
Good find! Usually "Immunity to Magic (Ex)" such as applied to Golems means infinite spell resistance, which means you can't be immune to spells that are "SR: No" such as Orb nukes, Dispel Magic, and Disjunction. I expect that's RAI for this monster that's also a construct like Golems with its lesser (Ex) immunities to specific spells. However, RAW indeed doesn't say that it can't be applied to spells like Disjunction too.


I personally just prefer an immediate action violet ward from initiate of the sevenfold veil, seems like way less effort.
Violet Ward is certainly very nice, however it requires all seven levels of Iot7FV, which controls much of your build. It also requires you to have an immediate action, which you may have already used that turn or not be able to use due to being flatfooted. True immunity that always works without any investment on your part is more reliable.

[Anthrowhale]

Mine is even simpler - They spelled it out because it needed clarifying.

Then, perhaps we are agreeing? My belief is that 'cast into' is clarified the same way for both spells: 'cast into' includes overlapping area effects with an exterior point of origin that intersect.



But really, whether you believe this line extends to Suppressing Field or not is moot. SF is beaten with a CL check. As I said upthread - once the answer is anything other than "no" you can optimize it to be "yes."

Yes, it's only a soft counter---see my first note.

[Crake]

The only way to really be immune to disjunction is to have nothing to be disjoined. Or alternatively, have things that, once disjoined, result in your benefit. Trap the soul a bunch of your ice assasins for example. You get disjoined, and bam, suddenly 30 ice assassins appear and are ready to fight for you.

Edit: For extra credit, have all of the ice assassins have contingencies to greater celerity when they're freed from the trap the soul

[Rubik]

The only way to really be immune to disjunction is to have nothing to be disjoined. Or alternatively, have things that, once disjoined, result in your benefit. Trap the soul a bunch of your ice assasins for example. You get disjoined, and bam, suddenly 30 ice assassins appear and are ready to fight for you.

Edit: For extra credit, have all of the ice assassins have contingencies to greater celerity when they're freed from the trap the soulWell, I suppose the Craft Device feat, from Ravenloft: Legacy of the Blood would come in supremely handy. Nonmagical magic items are pretty awesome.

[Psyren]

Then, perhaps we are agreeing? My belief is that 'cast into' is clarified the same way for both spells: 'cast into' includes overlapping area effects with an exterior point of origin that intersect.

Thing is, that clarification is about how AMF works - not necessarily what "cast into" means.

I'm not saying your reading is definitely incorrect, or that mine is definitely correct - just that it's ambiguous.


Yes, it's only a soft counter---see my first note.

And the other thing is, for a thread called "immunity to X" soft counters aren't good enough. A soft counter is merely "resistant to X."

[Tarvus]

Are you suggesting that a Selective AMF won't protect your items from Disjunction or that Selective Spell won't protect your items from the AMF?:smallconfused:

Given I'm not sure anyone answered your question, I'm fairly sure they mean the former. RAW I'd agree with that too. RC says it doesn't block line of effect. Given the items are attended, they are considered "you" w.r.t. to Selective Spell, thus are not covered by the AMF. With no AMF over the items, and AMF not blocking LoE, the AMF might as well not exist.

Admittedly though I personally feel (and houserule) that AMF does block LoE where a spell MUST pass through it to function, like the above example. But its not RAW.

[Anthrowhale]

Given the items are attended, they are considered "you" w.r.t. to Selective Spell, thus are not covered by the AMF. With no AMF over the items, and AMF not blocking LoE, the AMF might as well not exist.


Disagree here---you are assuming the Selective Spell works by cutting a person-size hole in AMF, but this is not what Selective Spell says. The AMF effect is not altered, except in that you are not affected. Hence, all spells cast into the AMF are affected.

[Tarvus]

Disagree here---you are assuming the Selective Spell works by cutting a person-size hole in AMF, but this is not what Selective Spell says. The AMF effect is not altered, except in that you are not affected. Hence, all spells cast into the AMF are affected.

First things first, do you agree that if it were a shaped spell instead and had such a hole, it would affect you as posited?
For an example, imagine a space not covered by AMF buy surrounded on all 6 sides by AMF's. A magic missile is cast at a target in the internal space from outside the AMFs. The MM might wink out of existence at the external border of the AMF and then back into existence at the internal border but it would strike its target as no matter what, AMF's don't block LoE. This is pretty concrete RAW wise (assuming you use the RC).


Given the above: Either magic can affect you or it cannot. From an AMF's point of view a buff spell cast by yourself withinin the field is no different from that MM targeting you from without. Either you are affected by the field and magic cannot interact with you in anyway or it does not and magic can. Given the AMF does not block Line of Effect it doesn't matter if the magic missile couldn't actually travel to you, it would wink into existence and strike you instantly*, requiring no distance between your skin and the active AMF. To prove this to you, imagine an effect that doesn't require a missile such as Slow or a teleportation effect - they just occur.


If instead you are saying that you would be affected by magic and your items would not:
A magic item doesn’t need to make a saving throw unless it is unattended, it is specifically targeted by the effect, or its wielder rolls a natural 1 on his save. So in this case the items are attended, this is known. They are not specifically targeted by the AMF and no Roll is made, thus they are not affected by the AMF if their user is not. They are specifically targeted by the Disjunction due to AMF's not blocking LoE. Because they are not subject to, and thus are not protected by, the AMF, they are thus affected normally.


*Instantly not instantaneously - if you slowed down time you couldn't actually see a point where the spell existed next to you but was not striking you. This concept leads to some fun physics issues where things can cease existing but also not by having instant effects applied, as "instant" cannot exist in RL, but it is valid.

[Melcar]

First things first, do you agree that if it were a shaped spell instead and had such a hole, it would affect you as posited?
For an example, imagine a space not covered by AMF buy surrounded on all 6 sides by AMF's. A magic missile is cast at a target in the internal space from outside the AMFs. The MM might wink out of existence at the external border of the AMF and then back into existence at the internal border but it would strike its target as no matter what, AMF's don't block LoE. This is pretty concrete RAW wise (assuming you use the RC).


Given the above: Either magic can affect you or it cannot. From an AMF's point of view a buff spell cast by yourself withinin the field is no different from that MM targeting you from without. Either you are affected by the field and magic cannot interact with you in anyway or it does not and magic can. Given the AMF does not block Line of Effect it doesn't matter if the magic missile couldn't actually travel to you, it would wink into existence and strike you instantly*, requiring no distance between your skin and the active AMF. To prove this to you, imagine an effect that doesn't require a missile such as Slow or a teleportation effect - they just occur.


A magic missile consist wholly of magic, thus when that spells enteres the area of an AMF, the directive that informs the spell to hit the target goes away too, meaning that it will not just wint in and out. There would be no magic left to reignite it, at tell it to hit the target. Im unsure if anything purely magical can enter and leave a AMF field on the other side.

[Sith_Happens]

Well, I suppose the Craft Device feat, from Ravenloft: Legacy of the Blood would come in supremely handy. Nonmagical magic items are pretty awesome.

Wait what? Please tell me more.:smallamused:


First things first, do you agree that if it were a shaped spell instead and had such a hole, it would affect you as posited?

Irrelevant, because that's not what Selective Spell does.


[Snip]

It depends on the spell. Disjunction is indeed prevented from working on you, because it's an area spell and the part of its area that includes you is within the AMF and therefore it doesn't affect that part.

[Psyren]

Wait what? Please tell me more.:smallamused:

It's a third-party book that lets you make non-magic magic items.



It depends on the spell. Disjunction is indeed prevented from working on you, because it's an area spell and the part of its area that includes you is within the AMF and therefore it doesn't affect that part.

But it can still affect your items. Unless your items are covered by the AMF, in which case they don't actually work.

[Rubik]

Wait what? Please tell me more.:smallamused:Ravenloft: Legacy of the Blood has the Craft Device feat, which allows you to mimic any one magic item creation feat without having to know the spells you'd have to cast to create the item, and, in fact, do not even need to be a spellcaster. The resulting items you create are nonmagical, but they require a very fragile but expensive power source that either has limited charges per use or requires time to charge between each use. If you overuse the power source, it can explode violently. Do note that an "always on" item, such as a headband of intellect, only requires one charge so long as you wear it.


It's a third-party book that lets you make non-magic magic items.It's definitely Swords & Sorcery, but it's also officially licensed by WotC, if that means anything.

[Sith_Happens]

Unless your items are covered by the AMF, in which case they don't actually work.

I think any items that have to be activated might work, but continuous ones are SOL. Of course, at the optimization level we're talking about you probably also have a Craft Contingent Celerity plus immunity to dazing for the extra, out-of-turn standard action with which to dismiss the AMF once the MDJ has passed.

[Anthrowhale]

do you agree that if it were a shaped spell instead and had such a hole, it would affect you as posited?

Sure.



Either magic can affect you or it cannot.


This is not true in general. There are plenty of examples of magic selectively affecting you throughout the rules.


AMF interacts with you, for example if you are an incorporeal undead:


... incorporeal undead wink out if they enter an antimagic field.


AMF also interacts with magics:


An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area...


Restated, "you" are not your magic, and all magic effects interact with an AMF independent of you since Selective spell does not change the way that magic interacts with AMF. It only changes the way that you interact with the AMF. You can breath a Su dragon breath, although it will be suppressed in the area of the AMF. You can cast spells, although they will be suppressed within the area of the AMF. You can exercise all of your magical abilities (because of Selective Spell), although their manifestations will be suppressed within the AMF (since selective spell does not alter the way AMF interacts with magic).

A special case is carried or worn items. AMF should merit the status of a 'spell attack' since it hampers and hence:


... all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack.

I take 'survive' here to mean 'not affected', so items you carry are not affected by selective spell:you.

Another special case is innate Su abilities like DR 5/magic or Divine Grace based on race or class features that only affect you. Should these count as you? I'd say yes, because they are a part of what defines 'you', but I could see an argument either way here.

[Tarvus]

A magic missile consist wholly of magic, thus when that spells enteres the area of an AMF, the directive that informs the spell to hit the target goes away too, meaning that it will not just wint in and out. There would be no magic left to reignite it, at tell it to hit the target. Im unsure if anything purely magical can enter and leave a AMF field on the other side.

Then how can an AMF not block line of effect then? It has to work like this or it does block line of effect. (Again, I'd houserule differently, but we're talking RAW).

As far as the game is concerned, while thematically Magic Missile sends missiles to strike you, and Ray of Frost sends a ray, besides the damage types, die and things that specifically interact with effect type (e.g. Ray Deflection), the actual mechanical effect is the same HP reduction is the same as a spell that just said "Target takes 1d6 points of untyped damage". Unless there's a specific rule that says "AMF does not block LoE except for Rays and Missiles" it has to work as described.


Restated, "you" are not your magic, and all magic effects interact with an AMF independent of you since Selective spell does not change the way that magic interacts with AMF. It only changes the way that you interact with the AMF. You can breath a Su dragon breath, although it will be suppressed in the area of the AMF. You can cast spells, although they will be suppressed within the area of the AMF. You can exercise all of your magical abilities (because of Selective Spell), although their manifestations will be suppressed within the AMF (since selective spell does not alter the way AMF interacts with magic).

That is kinda my point. You could cast in your selective AMF, and as long as your target wasn't also in it, it'd resolve normally. If you breathed a 60ft cone near the border of an AMF, the guy right in front of you but still in the AMF would not be affected, but the one behind him and outside of it would be. Its silly, but while the AMF stops it from having an effect in its area, but doesn't block line of effect like a 5ft stone cube would, so the effect has to continue though that area.

EDIT:
Image (http://i.imgur.com/0lKD85N.png?1). Too big to insert, and the cone dimensions are probably wrong as I just googled "cone template", but its indicative of what happens when a magical cone effect (red) encounters an AMF (blue). 1) Is obvious 2) Occurs because the AMF stops the cone from interacting with anything in its area, but does not block line of effect 3) If Selective Spell AMF allows you to cast at all, then that must be the result as again, AMF does not block LoE

[Anthrowhale]

That is kinda my point.


If we agree that all spells are suppressed within then AMF, then I don't see a disagreement. Earlier you had suggested that magic missile, slow, and teleportation are not suppressed.

[Tarvus]

If we agree that all spells are suppressed within then AMF, then I don't see a disagreement. Earlier you had suggested that magic missile, slow, and teleportation are not suppressed.

Did you see the linked image? I think I'm having trouble with getting the English right to express myself.

As you said: You can cast spells or use an (Su) in a Selective AMF. Their effects would be suppressed if their target (or the entirety of their effect area) was inside the AMF. However if you targeted something outside of the area with a spell while you yourself are inside the AMF and it would resolve normally as if the AMF didn't exist. As long as you can cast, there is no "solid barrier" in the way (the AMF doesn't constitute such a barrier), and the target is not affected by an AMF, the spell is resolved as if you'd cast it in an area with no AMF at all.

[atemu1234]

Well, I suppose the Craft Device feat, from Ravenloft: Legacy of the Blood would come in supremely handy. Nonmagical magic items are pretty awesome.

I once made an artificer variant able to throw away his ability to use infusions and got that for every Item Creation feat he got.

[Psyren]

Spells flying through an AMF are suppressed while inside but come out the other side and have their full effect. And if you can cast in an AMF (e.g. Selective AMF), your spellcasting will work, then the effect gets suppressed in transit, then pops out at the circumference and does its thing out there. So as long as you're not targeting something that is standing in your AMF radius you're good to go.

[Anthrowhale]

Spells flying through an AMF are suppressed while inside but come out the other side and have their full effect.

Agreed.

As a review:

Given the items are attended, they are considered "you" w.r.t. to Selective Spell, thus are not covered by the AMF.

This I disagree with. Items on you are not affected by AMF Selective Spell:You, but an incoming Disjunction targeting those items is (presuming the d% check fails). Why? Because AMF explicitly suppresses spells and Selective Spell does nothing to alter this.

Selective AMF is most advantageous for a fighterish build (like Rune-scarred Berserker), because it means opposing magic is nerfed, but their magical items keep working.

[Psyren]

Items on you are not affected by AMF Selective Spell:You, but an incoming Disjunction targeting those items is (presuming the d% check fails). Why? Because AMF explicitly suppresses spells and Selective Spell does nothing to alter this.

Right, but Selective Spell does not protect your items either. So either your items are protected from disjunction and subject to the AMF, or not and not. Hence all the talk above about using Devices which would get around the AMF.

Also, the whole AMF thing came up in the first place as a Contingency. This is a problem in and of itself, because once the contingency activates, the AMF is on until you can dismiss it. If any monsters go ahead of you, they can attack you (albeit without any magical buffs, Su abilities or items of their own) before your turn comes around and you can spend the standard action to turn it off.

[Tarvus]

Items on you are not affected by AMF Selective Spell:You.
Do you mean your items are not affected by an AMF that has selective spell with you as the designated creature OR items are not included in the selective spell targeting and are thus subject to the AMF? I think you mean the former given the below, but just to be sure.


Selective AMF is most advantageous for a fighterish build (like Rune-scarred Berserker), because it means opposing magic is nerfed, but their magical items keep working.
I don't understand this line of thinking - if theres no suppression affecting the items, theres nothing stopping it from affected by the disjunction.

Way I look at it: If I can cast out of the AMF (which I can), then I can cast range personal spells on myself. If I can cast range personal spells on myself, others can target me from outside. If I can be targeted, my items are fair game for a disjunction.

[Rubik]

I once made an artificer variant able to throw away his ability to use infusions and got that for every Item Creation feat he got.Note that you don't need the item creation feat in question in order to use the Craft Device feat. Item creation feats are neither prerequisites for, nor altered by, Craft Device.

Basically, you choose, say, Craft Device (Wondrous Item), irrespective of any other feats you've got. Then you can make nonmagical devices that mimic wondrous items without needing to be a caster or knowing the spells needed to make those items. Though you'll need to use up charges from a power source (which, as stated, are both expensive and dangerous).

[Anthrowhale]

Do you mean your items are not affected by an AMF that has selective spell with you as the designated creature...

I meant this.


So either your items are protected from disjunction and subject to the AMF, or not and not.

No---their is a confusion of cause and effect.

The cause of protection is the AMF effect. In particular "protection from Disjunction" is _not_ the AMF effect. Read it again (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm). The word protection never comes up in the description. Since "protection" is _not_ the AMF effect, items that are not affected by the AMF effect yet remain within the AMF effect are still protected as a consequence of this rule:


An antimagic field suppresses any spell ... cast into the area...

The area of the AMF effect is _not_ altered by selective spell. Selective spell only causes you (and implicitly your items) to not be affected by AMF. It does not alter the interaction of spells with AMF anywhere in the area of effect. Just to be super-explicit, selective spell says:



You can modify an area spell so that it does not affect one designated creature within it's area.


In particular, this says nothing about modifying an area spell so that it does not affect one designated spell within the area or part of the area.



If I can cast out of the AMF (which I can), then I can cast range personal spells on myself.

No, your spells are suppressed. You are not outside of the AMF. You are inside the AMF, and hence:


An antimagic field suppresses any spell ... cast into the area...

Selective Spell does not alter this rule.

[Tarvus]

An antimagic field suppresses any spell ... cast into the area...Selective Spell does not alter this rule.

Then you would have to argue that:

...suppresses any spell or magical effect used within,

Still applies, and you'd have to rule that these specifically target these effects. Which means you'd have to resolve the items being affected specifically. They use your saving throws but that isn't what provides immunity. Either you get blanket "non-effect" or you don't. At best you could argue you'd keep things like you mentioned such as DR 5/magic as specifically part of you but if they were granted by a spell then thats out too.

Like it or not, D&D focuses on Targets. If the AMF "does not affect one designated creature", then that creature remains a valid target for spells. The spell is cast at a target in the area but it is not an area spell. It doesn't affect the area, and that target is SPECIFICALLY not affected so must be valid. So Fireball no, Magic Missile yes.

Lastly, even if the above didn't apply; from a DM and Game Balance point of view, having your cake and eating it too on such shaky grounds is really dodgy. You can cast out but nothing can cast in? What about spells that Target outside but affect you as well like Channelled Lifetheft (CMage pg98 - Instantaneous Fatigue them, you gain Temp HP), which by the RAW argument you're presenting I could cast, but I couldn't cast a self buff? That'd be up there with drown healing. This isn't even about it being Overpowered (which it would be) - this is pure dysfunction ala the thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?267985-Completely-Dysfunctional-Handbook-3-5). You just couldn't build a consistent world or rule set with that interpretation.

EDIT: I think we might have strayed a bit too far from the original topic and we've dominated the discussion. Perhaps we should move on or create its own topic if you'd like to continue.

[Anthrowhale]

Then you would have to argue that:

Yes, spells and magical effects continue to be supressed within the AMF. Once again, selective spell says:


You can modify an area spell so that it does not affect one designated creature within it's area.

Since the designated creature is not a spell, this rule does not alter the way that AMF interacts with spells.



Which means you'd have to resolve the items being affected specifically.

I don't follow the argument, but it seems irrelevant to what the rules do to spells. One argument at a time.



having your cake and eating it too on such shaky grounds is really dodgy.

I have specified specific rules for this interpretation while you (and psyren) have not specified any for your interpretation, hence your interpretation is looking quite shaky.

W.r.t. game balance, Selective AMF is most beneficial for equipment-reliant characters and of unclear utility to wizards. Why is this unbalanced?



You can cast out but nothing can cast in?


Correct.



What about spells that Target outside but affect you as well like Channelled Lifetheft


The portion of channeled lifetheft within the AMF is suppressed, implying you gain no Temp HP.



this is pure dysfunction


I don't see any dysfunction. AMF suppresses spells in the area of effect as normal.

[Tarvus]

Enchantments are magical effects, and are thus specifically targeted.

There are other things but seriously though, if you want to continue this, make a new thread.

[Psyren]

Basically I'm with Tarvus on this one, but if we want to hash it out elsewhere I can elaborate further.

[Anthrowhale]

I starte a new thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?411392-Selective-Spell-Antimagic-Field-RAW).