PDA

View Full Version : Slight rant about casters.



Stevenson
2007-06-06, 06:13 PM
Okay, here's the issue. The big beef is antimagic field.

Whenever anyone brings up anti-magic field in a pro-fighter/anti-caster (which sadly seem to be one and the same these days), the pro-caster people will just say, "Well if the DM goes way out of their way to gimp casters, then it's just not fun." Or, "Yeah, but I mean AMF is just the DM trying to gimp casters, it's really not used!"

Okay, why isn't it used? Nobody seems to have a problem casting Wind Wall (very popular pro-caster arguement) to "go out of their way to gimp" archers. Nobody has issues with rays of enfeeblement used to "go out of their way to gimp" fighters. So why is another spell, used by spellcasters, so out of line?


Please, answer this for me. I really need to know.

DaMullet
2007-06-06, 06:15 PM
Because it's very common for those who are too strong for their own good and know it to be rather hypocritical. It's rather sad, but what can you do?

the_tick_rules
2007-06-06, 06:15 PM
i dunno, good question.

Icewalker
2007-06-06, 06:18 PM
I think AMF completely stops a caster, while the other two just weaken and can be dispelled, but I could be wrong.

The main thing I think is that AMF can only be used by other casters :smalleek:

I'd suggest homebrew magic items for SR, or at very high levels like a small anti-magic field amulet. That'd be cool.

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-06, 06:19 PM
Well first, AMF really isn't that great.

But AMF can't be cast by a fighter type. It requires a caster. So the expectation that a fighter type has access to an AMF is out of line. The expectation that a wizard has access to wind wall or ray of enfeeblement isn't out of line at all by comparison.

Next up is the fact that AMF's turn wizards into commoners with a good will save. RoE just lowers the fighters damage output a bit. Wind Wall negates archers but they are static defenses. The archer just uses a run action to get a shot that doesn't care about the windwall.

Stevenson
2007-06-06, 06:21 PM
Well first, AMF really isn't that great.

But AMF can't be cast by a fighter type. It requires a caster. So the expectation that a fighter type has access to an AMF is out of line. The expectation that a wizard has access to wind wall or ray of enfeeblement isn't out of line at all by comparison.

Next up is the fact that AMF's turn wizards into commoners with a good will save. RoE just lowers the fighters damage output a bit. Wind Wall negates archers but they are static defenses. The archer just uses a run action to get a shot that doesn't care about the windwall.

About Ray of enfeeblement, a bunch of people don't seem to use it to lower damage a bit, they use it to lower strength to about, say, 1, where they can't lift themselves out of their armor. *negated*

Windwall also seems to be able to wrap around some casters, giving them total windy defense. Not sure how valid that is, just heard it once.

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-06-06, 06:21 PM
AMF does not completely destroy casters. In fact, there's a rediculous number of ways to get around. Cheater of Mystara, for example, can cast in AMF. Also, it doesn't do jack or squat about Conjuration (Creation) effect. Can still trap the poor fighter with walls without any problems.

Stevenson
2007-06-06, 06:27 PM
AMF does not completely destroy casters. In fact, there's a rediculous number of ways to get around. Cheater of Mystara, for example, can cast in AMF. Also, it doesn't do jack or squat about Conjuration (Creation) effect. Can still trap the poor fighter with walls without any problems.

Okay, I'm gonna try to be fair to both sides here.

Okay, technically it does stop conjuration creation effects-just not those cast outside the AMF. Conjurations being cast by a person outside the field are, unlike evocations, not stopped by the AMF.

Droodle
2007-06-06, 06:28 PM
AMF is one of the best ways to take out casters if the one who casts it is willing to become extraordinarily vulnerable. That said, the spell is absolutely perfect for Favored Souls and Clerics or Gish with a natural means of flight. What happens to the wizard under the affects of a flight spell who gets charged by a flighted oppenent in an anti-magic field? Splat.

Greendevilman
2007-06-06, 06:29 PM
The thing is that AMFs arn't really a good solution because they're:

-Incredibly uncommon
-Only usable by casters
-Either short lived or very expensive
-Have tiny areas of effect
-Effectively negatable by casters via certain effects (Prismatic effects, Invoke Magic, etc.)
-Generaly gimp warrior PC types at least as hard as they gimp casters. The warrior's gear doesn't work at all and any CR appropriate melee monster will rip him several new orfices. Its only good for warrior PCs when they face other warrior PCs, and a caster can usually just step out and use superior mobility to run the hell away from the AMFed fighter who cannot follow because he can't use magic.

For all of these reasons AMF is generally considered a solution that is suggested be people who are frustrated by casters and don't know what the hell they're talking about. The only way they're effective is if you're encountering them every 100 yards or so which doesn't fit with the way D&D is presented, and you might as well just load all the warriors up on Artifact weapons instead which is at least somewhat in genre.

SpiderBrigade
2007-06-06, 06:30 PM
As Icewalker (edit: and apparently everyone else), said, where do antimagic fields come from? From other casters, or else from DM fiat.

The thing is, what people end up arguing is that "casters don't beat fighter-types because of Antimagic Field." They give all kinds of examples of how a monk or other melee character with an AMF cast on him can really mess with a wizard.

First of all, how does the monk get AMF cast on him? The party wizard? So what would he be doing without that? If he's somehow gotten ranks in UMD to cast it from a wand, or has a use-activated item, he's investing a lot of his energy in countering casters (Which brings me to my next point).

Second, the party isn't fighting amongst themselves, they are out in the world fighting various NPCs and monsters. If 2 out of every 3 encounters comes pre-equipped with an Antimagic Field or equivalent items, the DM is taking extra steps to nerf magic.

To make the Wind Wall comparison actually analogous, it'd be like every enemy you fight having a use-activated item of Wind Wall. Or the rogue meeting nothing but undead, plants, and constructs. The occasional "immune to your class abilities" encounter is okay, but if it happens enough to actually make your character weaker, the DM is doing it on purpose.

Of course, all of this is kind of a tangent anyway, since (as I'm sure the resident wizard-gurus will point out) Antimagic Field does not completely shut down a caster. He is certainly strongly constrained, but it's not a win-button for a melee build either.

Greendevilman
2007-06-06, 06:31 PM
Okay, I'm gonna try to be fair to both sides here.

Okay, technically it does stop conjuration creation effects-just not those cast outside the AMF. Conjurations being cast by a person outside the field are, unlike evocations, not stopped by the AMF.

Right, but AMF has a 10 foot radius so the person casting the conjuration effect can just step outside and fix the "problem".

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-06, 06:34 PM
About Ray of enfeeblement, a bunch of people don't seem to use it to lower damage a bit, they use it to lower strength to about, say, 1, where they can't lift themselves out of their armor. *negated*

If the fighter is caring that much stuff then they deserve it. Full plate is 50 pounds, add 20 pounds for other items. The rest should be in a bag of holding, HHH or portable hole.

If the fighter can't take 11 points of strength damage at those levels and still carry his stuff then he isn't built well.


Windwall also seems to be able to wrap around some casters, giving them total windy defense. Not sure how valid that is, just heard it once.

Yeah, you can do that with windwall. I forgot that (stupid being tired).

I've said before, it should be weakened. It is overpowered for its level.

Droodle
2007-06-06, 06:42 PM
at those levels and still carry his stuff then he isn't built well.
11? Hah! A wizard or Gish (a Gish is better for ray spells) can easily do 17-22 points of strength damage in a single round by casting a quickened ray of enfeeblement followed by a maximized ray. Most plate clad fighters are not going to move well after that....if at all. A fighter is going to be carrying a lot more gear than just his armor, after all (spare weapon, some sort of ranged weapon, shield, etc). On the other hand, targeting his dexterity is even easier.

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-06, 06:49 PM
11? Hah! A wizard or Gish (a Gish is better for ray spells) can easily do 17-22 points of strength damage in a single round by casting a quickened ray of enfeeblement followed by a maximized ray. Most plate clad fighters are not going to move well after that....if at all. A fighter is going to be carrying a lot more gear than just his armor, after all (spare weapon, some sort of ranged weapon, shield, etc). On the other hand, targeting his dexterity is even easier.

Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't stack with its self.

People really should read spells before they comment.

Droodle
2007-06-06, 06:53 PM
Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't stack with its self.

People really should read spells before they comment.From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/rayOfEnfeeblement.htm).



A coruscating ray springs from your hand. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a penalty to Strength equal to 1d6+1 per two caster levels (maximum 1d6+5). The subject’s Strength score cannot drop below 1. Where's the part about it not stacking with itself, again?

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-06, 06:55 PM
A coruscating ray springs from your hand. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a penalty to Strength equal to 1d6+1 per two caster levels (maximum 1d6+5). The subject’s Strength score cannot drop below 1.

Penalties don't stack with themselves if from the same source.

If it actually did ability damage it would stack.

Counterpower
2007-06-06, 07:07 PM
I think AMF is a good defense for dragons.

Wizard: "Hah, eat my Shivering Touch! Goodbye red dragon!"
Dragon: "Um. No. I have an Antimagic Field up."

After all, a dragon has pretty formidable defenses if you can't use magic on him. Sure, doing that repeatedly is a bad idea, since the DM shouldn't just take away a class's abilities. But I think it's a perfectly reasonable defense that at least one dragon would consider. It'd have to be a pretty powerful dragon though.

Droodle
2007-06-06, 07:11 PM
Penalties don't stack with themselves if from the same source.

If it actually did ability damage it would stack.Fair enough. I'd just request that next time, you don't just automatically accuse people of not reading the spell descriptions before posting. In my case, I actually had, and didn't like your insinuation very much.

Shoyliguad
2007-06-06, 07:23 PM
AMF is really weak and I hope that WotC wises up and figures out a way to give it to non-casters. No caster is EVER going to use AMF becuase it makes them useless... no caster except maybe a druid wants that. My alternitive to it is simple, I accept no super powerful casters that make everyone else worthless and can run through my campaign easily. You are the DM, you have full right to say no to this and that whenever you feel it kills the game...

Counterpower
2007-06-06, 07:26 PM
AMF is really weak and I hope that WotC wises up and figures out a way to give it to non-casters. No caster is EVER going to use AMF becuase it makes them useless... no caster except maybe a druid wants that. My alternitive to it is simple, I accept no super powerful casters that make everyone else worthless and can run through my campaign easily. You are the DM, you have full right to say no to this and that whenever you feel it kills the game...

I'll be standing at a safe distance when you tell a wyrm gold dragon that he's useless without magic. And I'll inform your next of kin as well.

ByeLindgren
2007-06-06, 07:28 PM
Well, you could still reduce STR by 12-17 and DEX by 6 with a Quickened Ray of Enfeeblement and then a Split Ray of Exhaustion. 17 STR might be enough to stop some tanks in their tracks, no?

More on topic, though, AMF is just one specific, contrived solution to a superpowered problem. Even if it did work whenever it was used, it wouldn't (and couldn't) address the fact that the full caster is still really, really powerful in every other encounter. If Archers did a brokenly large amount of damage (let's say one trillion vile damage per arrow), the wizard being able to Wind Wall it away would not really fix the problem.

Dausuul
2007-06-06, 07:32 PM
I think AMF is a good defense for dragons.

Wizard: "Hah, eat my Shivering Touch! Goodbye red dragon!"
Dragon: "Um. No. I have an Antimagic Field up."

After all, a dragon has pretty formidable defenses if you can't use magic on him. Sure, doing that repeatedly is a bad idea, since the DM shouldn't just take away a class's abilities. But I think it's a perfectly reasonable defense that at least one dragon would consider. It'd have to be a pretty powerful dragon though.

AMF on dragons is a scary, scary thing, and it's a perfectly sensible tactic for the dragon to use. Unfortunately, dragons that can cast AMF are all CR 19+, so they're only useful for countering casters at quite high levels.

Draz74
2007-06-06, 07:32 PM
What other people are referring to in passing, but not saying explicitly, is that most casters don't like casting AMF because it is a two-edged sword, self-destructive, and taking away most of its own caster's good options. That is why AMF is rarely seen.

Wizards don't like casting it because then they can't cast any more spells.

Sorcerers don't like casting it because then they can't cast any more spells.

Clerics don't usually like casting it because then they can't cast any more spells, including the buffs that make them great in melee.

Druids don't usually like casting it because then they can't cast any more spells. Well, that and it's not on their spell list. :smalltongue:

Strong gish builds, including especially-martial Clerics and Favored Souls (especially the latter, with their natural flight, in some situations) can be exceptions to this rule. And the aforementioned Dragon is the ultimate gish. :smallamused:

ohgodwhyamionfi
2007-06-06, 07:33 PM
I think AMF is a good defense for dragons.

Wizard: "Hah, eat my Shivering Touch! Goodbye red dragon!"
Dragon: "Um. No. I have an Antimagic Field up."

After all, a dragon has pretty formidable defenses if you can't use magic on him. Sure, doing that repeatedly is a bad idea, since the DM shouldn't just take away a class's abilities. But I think it's a perfectly reasonable defense that at least one dragon would consider. It'd have to be a pretty powerful dragon though.

Uh yeah that's not just "good"... a dragon that has an AMF up is ridiculous, it can beat pretty much anything except other monsters of a way higher CR... a dragon casting AMF is the kind of cheesy combo players buy candles of invocation for. A fighter can't do anything to a dragon in an AMF either. The melee guy can't get close and the archer can't beat DR/magic when his magic arrows are negated.
I guess a wizard can gate in a dream larva or something else ridiculous and epic, but that doesn't make it ok.

Stevenson
2007-06-06, 07:33 PM
To make the Wind Wall comparison actually analogous, it'd be like every enemy you fight having a use-activated item of Wind Wall. Or the rogue meeting nothing but undead, plants, and constructs. The occasional "immune to your class abilities" encounter is okay, but if it happens enough to actually make your character weaker, the DM is doing it on purpose.



Oh, don't worry, the PCs aren't facing enemies with windwall.

Just everything the PC wizard fights. That's what I'm saying. If wizards can gimp other classes without a worry, why can't casters gimp casters?

Counterpower
2007-06-06, 07:48 PM
I think AMF is just another weapon in the wizard's arsenal....... one that takes a little effort to use effectively, sure, but is absolutely devastating when used correctly against other casters. If you can find some way to gain a melee edge on your opponent without magic (hard, I admit), then you could use AMF. As I have said, I believe dragons are one caster that really get serious mileage out of AMF, or any other monster that's just physically more powerful than a wizard (and has casting abilities). I can certainly imagine using it if one of my players went around killing high-power dragons as they pleased.

Hmmm, what about eldritch knight? A wizard should be able to get far enough for AMF, and be distinctly more powerful than a straight caster in melee. As a mage killing build for one of my NPCs, maybe. Although the logistics involved with actually leveling that build as a PC would be challenging indeed.

ohgodwhyamionfi: Perhaps, just maybe, you thought of any number of other things the party could do? At the level this is at, gate is a distinct possibility. Running away may be what's necessary, at least while you come up with a better plan. Heck, I've created an encounter before that wasn't supposed to be a combat encounter, where the NPC had a combo that forced a bunch of casters to either engage a paladin in melee or run for their lives. They really were not supposed to fight. I actually intended them to ally, but they were too hardheaded for that. Defeat is not always death, and victory is not always "they're dead". Considering the aforementioned paladin failed to capture the party, who really won that encounter?

SpiderBrigade
2007-06-06, 07:56 PM
Oh, don't worry, the PCs aren't facing enemies with windwall.

Just everything the PC wizard fights. That's what I'm saying. If wizards can gimp other classes without a worry, why can't casters gimp casters?They can, I think is the point. The reason you hear people talking about AMF the way they do is that it's used as a general response to the superiority of casters. If you're only seeing the occasional spell-casting enemy use AMF, it's not putting a dent in the overpowerdness of wizards, even if it's highly effective. Again, it isn't necessarily.

On the other hand, if there are disproportionately many encounters with AMF, the DM's doing it on purpose and it ceases to be the same as an enemy wizard shutting down the archer with wind wall.

To boil it down, either only other casters are using the spell, in which case it fails to fix the balance problem, OR it is fixing the balance problem, in which case the enemies are being custom-tailored to nerf the wizard.

PinkysBrain
2007-06-06, 07:58 PM
AMF is really weak and I hope that WotC wises up and figures out a way to give it to non-casters.
Antimagic torc from Underdark, also rune magic from Faerun can be used with any divine spell ... a single use rune of AMF (from a cleric with protection domain) would cost you 3300 gp.

PS. if you can't find a way to counter AMF you shouldn't be playing a wizard :p

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-06, 08:00 PM
I think AMF is just another weapon in the wizard's arsenal....... one that takes a little effort to use effectively, sure, but is absolutely devastating when used correctly against other casters. If you can find some way to gain a melee edge on your opponent without magic (hard, I admit), then you could use AMF. As I have said, I believe dragons are one caster that really get serious mileage out of AMF, or any other monster that's just physically more powerful than a wizard (and has casting abilities). I can certainly imagine using it if one of my players went around killing high-power dragons as they pleased.

Again, Meh.

A move action to retreat 15 feet followed by a wall of force, prismatic sphere, prismatic wall, etc.

You can beat most any dragon with 2 castings of wall of force.


Hmmm, what about eldritch knight? A wizard should be able to get far enough for AMF, and be distinctly more powerful than a straight caster in melee. As a mage killing build for one of my NPCs, maybe. Although the logistics involved with actually leveling that build as a PC would be challenging indeed.

Retreat 10 feet and use Force Cage. Wizard wins.

barawn
2007-06-06, 08:01 PM
The thing is that AMFs arn't really a good solution because they're:

-Incredibly uncommon

Why?

Why in the world wouldn't every single municipality of any decent size have an item of antimagic field handy to deal with rogue casters? Why wouldn't any party of, say, high level rogues not have scrolls of antimagic field handy?

The biggest problem with antimagic field is that it's mechanically insane. If you could place the field, and it had a slightly larger AoE, it was solve oh so many problems.

PinkysBrain
2007-06-06, 08:04 PM
Well a good magekiller would have thicket of blades so moving away could present some problems.

Setra
2007-06-06, 08:05 PM
I know this isn't possible...

But it'd be funny if you could fire an arrow with a scroll of antimagic field attached to it, and somehow activate it, so that it follows the wizard around.

Is there such thing as an antimagic arrow?

Koga
2007-06-06, 08:11 PM
Why don't you RP reasonable solutions to casters?

A fighter lops off the wizard's hands.

An archer shoots an arrow at his throat wounding his vocal cords.


A wizard without a voice or hands is a wizard without verbal/somatic components.

Ninja Chocobo
2007-06-06, 08:15 PM
I think AMF is a good defense for dragons.

Wizard: "Hah, eat my Shivering Touch! Goodbye red dragon!"
Dragon: "Um. No. I have an Antimagic Field up."

After all, a dragon has pretty formidable defenses if you can't use magic on him. Sure, doing that repeatedly is a bad idea, since the DM shouldn't just take away a class's abilities. But I think it's a perfectly reasonable defense that at least one dragon would consider. It'd have to be a pretty powerful dragon though.

Note on this:
A Colossal Dragon will still have its extremeties out of range of the AMF, since it's only a 10' radius.

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-06, 08:16 PM
Why?

Why in the world wouldn't every single municipality of any decent size have an item of antimagic field handy to deal with rogue casters? Why wouldn't any party of, say, high level rogues not have scrolls of antimagic field handy?

The biggest problem with antimagic field is that it's mechanically insane. If you could place the field, and it had a slightly larger AoE, it was solve oh so many problems.
Because the items don't exist? :smallconfused:

And Thicket of Blades requires ToB to be in play.

Cruiser1
2007-06-06, 08:18 PM
What happens to the wizard under the affects of a flight spell who gets charged by a flighted oppenent in an anti-magic field? Splat.No, the wizard just falls 10 feet until he's outside of the antimagic field radius, at which point his Fly buff takes effect again. Antimagic Field (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm) only temporarily supresses magical effects, it doesn't dispell them.

Ivius
2007-06-06, 08:38 PM
This probably isn't the correct topic, but I don't think I'll get another chance for a while. Wouldn't an AMF amulet cancel out itself, then turn on again, re-cancel itself, turn back on, eventually tearing a whole in the universe?

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-06, 08:41 PM
This probably isn't the correct topic, but I don't think I'll get another chance for a while. Wouldn't an AMF amulet cancel out itself, then turn on again, re-cancel itself, turn back on, eventually tearing a whole in the universe?

A continuous one would.

What you want is a use-activated one that casts AMF on the amulet every round. It is suppressed for as long as the AMF lasts, then it recasts its self as soon as it goes down.

PinkysBrain
2007-06-06, 08:42 PM
Koga, roleplay stops at at your own character. What you describe is storytelling, if you want to ditch the rules and play a pure storytelling system that is fine ... but that has got little to do with gamebalance in D&D.

EvilElitest
2007-06-06, 08:42 PM
Uh yeah that's not just "good"... a dragon that has an AMF up is ridiculous, it can beat pretty much anything except other monsters of a way higher CR... a dragon casting AMF is the kind of cheesy combo players buy candles of invocation for. A fighter can't do anything to a dragon in an AMF either. The melee guy can't get close and the archer can't beat DR/magic when his magic arrows are negated.
I guess a wizard can gate in a dream larva or something else ridiculous and epic, but that doesn't make it ok.

Um, really high int anybody? Dragons are smart, and it has been proven that a caster can kill a wizard at high levels
from,
EE

PinkysBrain
2007-06-06, 08:44 PM
Because the items don't exist?
In Faerun they do.

Counterpower
2007-06-06, 08:58 PM
Again, Meh.

A move action to retreat 15 feet followed by a wall of force, prismatic sphere, prismatic wall, etc.

You can beat most any dragon with 2 castings of wall of force.



Retreat 10 feet and use Force Cage. Wizard wins.

I concede that....... but unless your victory condition is "Get away from the guy with AMF", I don't really think trapping them in a forcecage counts as victory. How does trapping the eldritch knight in a forcecage or walling off the dragon help you kill them, exactly?

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-06-06, 08:58 PM
Why not make a particular rare material that naturally produces a small anti-magic field that can be crafted and worn by non-casters? Yes, things like forcecage from out of range are still cheap ways for a caster to beat it, but it's significantly harder to do that then what a caster's used to (especially since the non-caster has a good shot at getting the drop on the caster with initiative. Caster with buffs suddenly nullified is likely to get creamed at close range once he loses initiative). Perhaps the material's just common enough for some rulers and such to have their castles lined to prevent wizard attacks and scrying, but uncommon to the point that you'd have better luck getting adamantine.

I'm thinking it weighs about as much as common steel, has 30 hit points per inch and 15 hardness, grants damage reduction or damage bypass like adamantine (it's necessary to boost up it's effectiveness since it can't ever be enchanted), and projects a 20 foot anti-magic field as cast by a 20th level caster. Costs double what adamantine costs. Fine or smaller pieces only get a 5 foot AMF, to prevent a savvy archer from pinning down a caster too much (though I like the idea enough to not entirely remove it).

Eh?

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-06, 09:00 PM
In Faerun they do.

Hmm. I have never read most of the stuff in my FR books so you are most likely right. Still those only exist in the FR setting, they aren't available in say Eberron or Greyhawk.

Gavin Sage
2007-06-06, 09:13 PM
This probably isn't the correct topic, but I don't think I'll get another chance for a while. Wouldn't an AMF amulet cancel out itself, then turn on again, re-cancel itself, turn back on, eventually tearing a whole in the universe?

Then AMFs couldn't exist in the first place as they would cancel themselves out instantaneously. The spell has a duration remember?

So an continuous AMF item would built so as to not suppress the field generator, just as the spell doesn't cancel itself out. Or it could be an activation item where it would cast the spell as a caster of x level would and then it could cancel itself out but that wouldn't matter since the spell is sustaining itself as normal.

Oh and using an AMF. Rogues, Use Magic Device, Scroll of Antimagic, Hide, Sneak Attack. Or some such variation after step three. I'm also sure there is a some way to build your mage so that they can alter a spells type of effect, casting say a personal spell on another or as a cone instead of an area, but can't remember the exact prestige class or whatever. And I have seen an Antimagic Ray variation on a spell list too, not simply for Beholders. Even aside from that I think AMF can remain useful if not uncounterable.

Greendevilman
2007-06-06, 10:45 PM
Why?

Why in the world wouldn't every single municipality of any decent size have an item of antimagic field handy to deal with rogue casters? Why wouldn't any party of, say, high level rogues not have scrolls of antimagic field handy?

The biggest problem with antimagic field is that it's mechanically insane. If you could place the field, and it had a slightly larger AoE, it was solve oh so many problems.

Because with the exception of FR almost no described settings have them described as anything approaching common and given how much they already would cost as a magic item the idea that an enchanced, permanent version would be remotely affordable by more than one or two municipalities is ludicrious. The kinds of people and places who could afford them generally tend to be/have casters of their own and would likely be better served by putting that money towards some of their own high level magical hijinks than a highly immobile and limited solution that requires additional special resources to take full advantage of. With the way the spell and D&D items are described it just isn't a remotely viable option.

Greendevilman
2007-06-06, 11:01 PM
I concede that....... but unless your victory condition is "Get away from the guy with AMF", I don't really think trapping them in a forcecage counts as victory. How does trapping the eldritch knight in a forcecage or walling off the dragon help you kill them, exactly?

They've gotta eat eventually right? The spell doesn't have a terribly long duration, so barring a continuous item of AMF you've just given an arcane caster a few hours to think of horrible things to do to you when the field comes down. Alternately you can just bust out the Planar Allies, Planar Bindings, or Gates to call (and note that these are not summoning spells so the creatures can enter the AMF) something monstrous to beat your foolish opponent down. Pretty much anything you pull out of the magic hat is going to be scarier than whatever was trying to AMF you.

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-06-06, 11:28 PM
I concede that....... but unless your victory condition is "Get away from the guy with AMF", I don't really think trapping them in a forcecage counts as victory. How does trapping the eldritch knight in a forcecage or walling off the dragon help you kill them, exactly?

Because once you get out of the AMF, you can launch things which are not affected by AMF at them virtually at will.

For example, if you Forcecage the guy with AMF and back up a bit, you can then drop a Cloudkill on him (again, Conjuration(Creation) effect, so not affected by SR) and cause him to take con damage every turn, even on a successful fort save. Oh, by the way... because of your AMF, you just negated any way of getting OUT of the forcecage... like Disintegrate or rod of negation, or any form of teleportation. And if you drop the AMF... you just opened yourself back up to getting things like Enervation thrown at you.

Renx
2007-06-07, 04:48 AM
IMO you can't bind an AMF to an item without at least divine help.

Jack_Simth
2007-06-07, 06:06 AM
I know this isn't possible...

But it'd be funny if you could fire an arrow with a scroll of antimagic field attached to it, and somehow activate it, so that it follows the wizard around.

Is there such thing as an antimagic arrow?

It requires two levels of Arcane Archer for Imbue Arrow, but yes - Core, even; it's a DMG prestige class.

Droodle
2007-06-07, 06:36 AM
No, the wizard just falls 10 feet until he's outside of the antimagic field radius, at which point his Fly buff takes effect again. Antimagic Field (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm) only temporarily supresses magical effects, it doesn't dispell them.Not if he's grappling the wizard until right before they hit the ground....

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-07, 09:59 AM
But isn't forcecage Evocation? AMF piffs it away. Neither the AMf spell description nor the Forcecage spell description says that the forcecage is immune to AMF.

Jayabalard
2007-06-07, 11:23 AM
Why not make a particular rare material that naturally produces a small anti-magic field that can be crafted and worn by non-casters?Sounds like Cold Iron... not in D&D, but in real world myths.


Koga, roleplay stops at at your own character. What you describe is storytelling, if you want to ditch the rules and play a pure storytelling system that is fine ... but that has got little to do with gamebalance in D&D.There are rules/game mechanics for those sort of things in other systems, and there's no reason something like that couldn't be put together and used in D&D. so it doesn't require a pure storytelling system at all.

Piccamo
2007-06-07, 11:26 AM
So now you are supporting your argument with house rules? Anyone can make up rules to make things true.

Tokiko Mima
2007-06-07, 11:43 AM
Uh yeah that's not just "good"... a dragon that has an AMF up is ridiculous, it can beat pretty much anything except other monsters of a way higher CR... a dragon casting AMF is the kind of cheesy combo players buy candles of invocation for. A fighter can't do anything to a dragon in an AMF either. The melee guy can't get close and the archer can't beat DR/magic when his magic arrows are negated.
I guess a wizard can gate in a dream larva or something else ridiculous and epic, but that doesn't make it ok.

Actually, DR/magic is considered a supernatural ability, and is negated inside AMF.. so a dragon is actually removing it's DR/magic by invoking an AMF. Arrows would work fine, but they wouldn't be magic.

Starbuck_II
2007-06-07, 11:47 AM
Uh yeah that's not just "good"... a dragon that has an AMF up is ridiculous, it can beat pretty much anything except other monsters of a way higher CR... a dragon casting AMF is the kind of cheesy combo players buy candles of invocation for. A fighter can't do anything to a dragon in an AMF either. The melee guy can't get close and the archer can't beat DR/magic when his magic arrows are negated.
I guess a wizard can gate in a dream larva or something else ridiculous and epic, but that doesn't make it ok.

Animagiv field nullifies Supernatural DR like DR/magic. Bye bye all your wonderful DR.

So AMF's suck for Dragons.

Jayabalard
2007-06-07, 11:55 AM
So now you are supporting your argument with house rules? Anyone can make up rules to make things true.huh? My only argument is that it doesn't require "ditch the rules and play a pure storytelling system" as PinkysBrain claimed, to add those mechanics to the game.

It can be done in other game systems by RAW, and can be added to D20 by homebrew. In the first case, you've ditched the rules, but not moved to a pure storytelling system; in the latter case, you've [I]added rules, not ditched them, and you're still not playing a pure storytelling system.

In neither case did you have to ditch the rules and play a pure storytelling system...

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-07, 12:03 PM
But isn't forcecage Evocation? AMF piffs it away. Neither the AMf spell description nor the Forcecage spell description says that the forcecage is immune to AMF.

Forcecage says that it is treated like Wall of Force. Which is immune to AMF.

Morty
2007-06-07, 12:07 PM
I won't say that AMFs are overrated, because it's been said already.
I'll just say that the whole idea of spells functioning inside AMF is ridiculous. It's supposed to nullify all magic, for God's sake.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-06-07, 12:07 PM
In neither case did you have to ditch the rules and play a pure storytelling system...

You are correct to that extent. However, the suggestion itself strays beyond the boundaries of the current discussion, which is limited to the actual game rules.

Saph
2007-06-07, 12:10 PM
Animagiv field nullifies Supernatural DR like DR/magic. Bye bye all your wonderful DR.

So AMF's suck for Dragons.

Uh, no, they really don't.

At mid-high and high levels, practically all of a character's attacks and defences are either magic or magic-enhanced. So the dragon's DR/magic is useless anyway. The only thing it loses by casting AMF is its breath weapon.

The PC, on the other hand, loses their stat boosts, weapon boosts, armour boosts, shield boosts, all their buffs, and all their spellcasting capability. Oh, and the dragon can fly - can your PC fly without magic? Not to mention that since your AC is down, the dragon can dump most of its attack bonus into Power Attack. One full attack will probably kill even a high-HD character in a single round.

An AMF'ed dragon is one of the most overpowered enemies your character can possibly face. It's not something you do as a DM unless you want the players to die.

- Saph

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-07, 12:33 PM
It is magic its self. As actually written it should negate its self.

And while it makes sense thematically in FR it doesn't in most other settings.

FR has the weave, you can say taht AMF temporarily suppresses access to the weave in a limited area.

Greyhawk and Eberron don't have a similar trait, what is AMF doing? How does it work IC?

Morty
2007-06-07, 12:40 PM
Well, is there specific explanation of how magic works in Greyhawk or Eberron like the Weave in FR?
Anyway, you could describe it as continuous, automatic dispels affecting the area, so that all magic is disrupted.

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-07, 12:51 PM
Nope. Nothing like the weave is mentioned in published 3.5 greyhawk or eberron.

As for continuous dispels how come there is no caster level check?

elliott20
2007-06-07, 12:57 PM
every time Emperor Tippy talks about how powerful wizards are, it just makes me hate the 3.5 magic system that much more.

Morty
2007-06-07, 01:02 PM
As for continuous dispels how come there is no caster level check?

Honestly, I don't know. I never thought about it, I just considered that the spell surpresses everything supernatural in the area. But it makes no sense anyway, since it's basically permanent version os Mage's Disjunction- a spell of higher level. It's weaker only because it doesn't totally switch off magic items.

Tokiko Mima
2007-06-07, 01:06 PM
I always thought that Disjunction should instead be a higher level, less restricted AMF instead of a magic item destroyer. Then maybe it would see a lot more use.

AMF is kind of an oddball spell: there aren't any upgrades or different versions or anything that works at all like it.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-06-07, 01:38 PM
There's a spell that prevents a specific school of magic from functioning in a given area. There are spells that exclude spells of certain levels from affecting an area.