Globe of Invulnerability vs Instantaneous Conjuration (Creation) Spells

[Sleven]

I was having this discussion last night with a member of the campaign I am currently participating in. Nothing was at stake as this is unlikely to come up for either of our characters. Regardless, we had a disagreement on the subject that hinged on whether or not the specific text of Globe of Invulnerability trumped the specific text of Instantaneous Conjuration (Creation) spells being non-magical once they are created. As a frequent Sorcerer player, I've had this conversation before, but since I'm new to the playground I thought I'd hear what other board members thought about the subject.

To me, the discussion boils down to your interpretation of what the rules mean by a spell effect, and how that interacts with spells that produce something non-magical in the purest sense (ala Instantaneous Conjuration (Creation) spells).

[Sleven]

Please let me know if the title or the first post was not clear. I'll add this much to try and give people an idea of the direction I was going in, if not, I'll just assume it's something people don't really have an opinion on and leave it be:

How would you rule a Globe of Invulnerability to work against Hail of Stone? Orb of Acid? What about Create Water? Beget Bogun?

For the record, all of the above example spells are Instantaneous Conjuration (Creation) spells with a spell level of 4th or lower.

[Necroticplague]

Globe of Invulnerability stops spells of too low a level. Those spells are of a low enough level, and lack anything that specifies that they pierce the Globe. The only thing that even remotely implies anything of this nature is in an entirely different spell altogether.

[Anthrowhale]

Hail of Stone is blocked because magic is used in it's creation and Globe of Invulnerability disrupts low level magic. It's the same with everything except for the Orb of Acid where the Orb is made next to you and then fired into the globe. As a nonmagical orb, Globe of Invulnerability has no effect.

[Necroticplague]

Hail of Stone is blocked because magic is used in it's creation and Globe of Invulnerability disrupts low level magic. It's the same with everything except for the Orb of Acid where the Orb is made next to you and then fired into the globe. As a nonmagical orb, Globe of Invulnerability has no effect.

Incorrect, read closer

An immobile, faintly shimmering magical sphere surrounds you and excludes all spell effects of 3rd level or lower. The area or effect of any such spells does not include the area of the lesser globe of invulnerability. Such spells fail to affect any target located within the globe.



Conjuration (Creation) [Acid]
Level: Sorcerer 4, Wizard 4,
Components: V, S,
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: One orb of acid
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial; see text
Spell Resistance: No
Globe of Invulnerability does not care if the effect is magic. Is cares if it's a spell effect. An Orb of Acid's Orb of Acid is a spell effect. Thus, it fails to affect any target located within the globe.

[Zanos]

I agree with necroticplague.

Antimagic Field has a specific exception for instantaneous creation spells. Globe of Invulnerability does not.

[Anthrowhale]

Globe of Invulnerability does not care if the effect is magic. Is cares if it's a spell effect. An Orb of Acid's Orb of Acid is a spell effect. Thus, it fails to affect any target located within the globe.

This interpretation leads to inconsistency. What if you have a dungeon made out of Sanctum Wall of Iron by an archivist (a L4 spell)? The effect of an instantaneous conjuration(creation) spell are no longer a 'spell effect' after creation.



Antimagic Field has a specific exception for instantaneous creation spells. Globe of Invulnerability does not.

The AMF mention is in parenthesis, as if it is simply spelling out some consequences of existing rules. And, indeed, it is. If you look at Conjuration(creation) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#creation) it says:
If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence.

[Necroticplague]

This interpretation leads to inconsistency.
How is it inconsistent? Seems perfectly consistent to me: If it's too low a level, it can't effect or target in the area.


What if you have a dungeon made out of Sanctum Wall of Iron by an archivist (a L4 spell)? The effect of an instantaneous conjuration(creation) spell are no longer a 'spell effect' after creation.
1. Wall of Iron is a level 6 spell normally, so this trick doesn't fit it small enough to be blocked by a Globe of Invulnerability.
2. Even if it was, for sake of argument, Globe of Invulnerability doesn't affect effects already in place.

Spells of 4th level and higher are not affected by the globe, nor are spells already in effect when the globe is cast. The globe can be brought down by a targeted dispel magic spell, but not by an area dispel magic. You can leave and return to the globe without penalty.
So unless the dungeon was being built around you, the Globe would do nothing.

The AMF mention is in parenthesis, as if it is simply spelling out some consequences of existing rules. And, indeed, it is. If you look at Conjuration(creation) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#creation) it says:
And? Globe doesn't block magic, it blocks spell effects. Those Orbs are still spell effects, even if they aren't magic.

[Anthrowhale]

1. Wall of Iron is a level 6 spell normally, so this trick doesn't fit it small enough to be blocked by a Globe of Invulnerability.

Hence 'archivist' which normally casts wall of iron as a level 5 spell.


So unless the dungeon was being built around you, the Globe would do nothing.
Ok, agreed.


And? Globe doesn't block magic, it blocks spell effects. Those Orbs are still spell effects, even if they aren't magic.
But is an orb a spell effect when it hits? Reading through AMF, it says
The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result. If you want to argue that the orb is a spell effect when it hits, then it will not penetrate AMF since it is not correct that "the conjuration itself is no longer in effect". If you accept that only the result exists, then it can penetrate an AMF and a globe of invulnerability.

[Necroticplague]

But is an orb a spell effect when it hits? Yes. It's created by the Effect line of a spell, so it always a Spell Effect, from it's creation till forever.


Reading through AMF, it says And? How's an entirely unrelated spell in any way relevant? That's a complete non-sequitor.


If you want to argue that the orb is a spell effect when it hits, then it will not penetrate AMF since it is not correct that "the conjuration itself is no longer in effect".
Not true. I can, and do, argue that something can still be a spell effect (noun) when a spell is no longer in effect (verb).


If you accept that only the result exists, then it can penetrate an AMF and a globe of invulnerability.
Not true, because AMF and GoI don't target the same thing. One targets based on whether something is a spell, one targets based on if something is a spell effect. They have different criteria, and thus react differently to different things.

[Doctor Awkward]

Antimagic Field does not create a precedent for all spell interactions throughout all of D&D. The exceptions it creates within the rules are only for itself.

Globe of Invulnerability suppresses all spell effects of 4th level or lower within it's radius, except only for those that were already in effect before it was cast. Period.

[Anthrowhale]

Yes. It's created by the Effect line of a spell, so it always a Spell Effect, from it's creation till forever.
Just like Wall of Iron (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfIron.htm)? I believe your position is that a Extended Persistent Globe of Invulnerability brings down every Sanctum Wall of Iron cast by an archivist since yesterday? Better yet, a GoI cast in a Timeless[magic] plane brings down every Sanctum Wall of Iron cast by an archivist since the GoI was cast 2 centuries ago?


And? How's an entirely unrelated spell in any way relevant? That's a complete non-sequitor.
I disagree. The logic of AMF is that it does not affect Instantaneous Conjuration(Creation) spells because the spells are no longer in effect. Whether or not a spell is in effect is very relevant for resolving GoI.


One targets based on whether something is a spell, one targets based on if something is a spell effect. They have different criteria, and thus react differently to different things.
Again, AMF says:

... because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.
That line very clearly states that the spell is no longer in effect. Knowing that the spell is no longer in effect GoI does not stop it.

[Sleven]

The RAW of Globe of Invulnerability is pretty clear. Unless you can make a case for specific trumps general with regards to Instantaneous Conjuration (Creation) spells being a more specific circumstance than Globe.

The reason I've always found the spell so counter-intuitive is the two situations involving real water contradiction:

1) You're standing in a room protected by a Globe of Invulnerability, I fill that room up entirely with real water using the spell Create Water. You don't get wet, or even start to drown, but the water is also still capable of going through the globe, albeit in a "suppressed" state.

2) Same scenario, except I fill that same room up with water from a river. It's real water, just like before, except now the water isn't suppressed inside the globe and you drown.

This somewhat parrots what Anthrowhale's points. I do, however, disagree with Anthrowhale's use of AMF to try and make their point. They are two different spells, and while a dialectic about what it means to be no less real than the real thing, but magically made, should have any bearing on the spell Globe of Invulnerability has much more merit. There are also the Wall of Stone (as cast by a Trapsmith) scenarios.

For the record, unlike the other spells I mentioned, as an area spell Hail of Stone has no listed effect. I'm also using the Spell Compendium version for the sake of consistency in this thread, since some other versions have SR and none of the spells discussed in this thread were meant to.

[Anthrowhale]

The parenthetical in AMF is just explanation of existing rules. The core rules are in Conjuration(Creation) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#creation)
If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence. Hence the spell effect is the assembly while the nonmagical result is the assembled thing. GoI does not suppress any nonmagical things so it is entirely possible to drown in water from Create Water inside a Globe of Invulnerability so long as the assembly of that water happens outside the GoI.

[Necroticplague]

The parenthetical in AMF is just explanation of existing rules. The core rules are in Conjuration(Creation) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#creation) Hence the spell effect is the assembly while the nonmagical result is the assembled thing. GoI does not suppress any nonmagical things so it is entirely possible to drown in water from Create Water inside a Globe of Invulnerability so long as the assembly of that water happens outside the GoI.

Source for the bolded? GoI says it protects against spell effects, not magical effects.

[Anthrowhale]

Source for the bolded? GoI says it protects against spell effects, not magical effects.

The primary topic of the Magic Overview (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/magicOverview.htm) section is spells and all language there is consistent with spell effects being only magical effects. However, as far as I know the scope of 'spell effect' is never clearly delimited: It clearly includes the magical effects associated with the spell and a DM could try to include some of the nonmagical consequences of a spell. Can character in GoI drown by "create water" created outside of GoI? Can a character outside of GoI drown in "create water" then be resurrected when their body is brought into the GoI? Can a fireball start a fire that enters a GoI and burns things. Can a character be damaged outside of GoI by an SMIII monster then enter the GoI and have the wounds removed?

I would say 'yes', 'no', 'yes', and 'no' (respectively). It sounds like we at least disagree on the first. The best RAW evidence for the first 'yes' is that Create Water (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createWater.htm) is Duration:Instantaneous. The language of duration (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#duration) is not quite ironclad for this purpose but it does say
If the spell creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration. Since the effect is creating water and the duration is instantaneous, this indicates the created water is not a spell effect post creation.

If you accept the above (scoping spell effects by duration) that resolves all instantaneous spells with consequences after the instant. I'm not sure what you opinion on unwounding SMIII wounds or resurrection via GoI, so the only other area where I'm fairly sure we disagree is when a Lesser Orb of Acid targets something inside a GoI. For me, the spell effect is creating the orb and firing it off at a target with damage being a nonmagical part of the consequence, and hence not blocked by GoI. From the spell description you could interpret the damage as either part of the spell effect (since it is explicitly mentioned), or a consequence (since many spells discuss consequences repetitively). The general rules for how to interpret Instantaneous Conjuration(Creation) spells indicates that these spells only create things:
... the created object ... is merely assembled through magic. making damage a consequence rather than a spell effect.

The above is not air-tight as there is some room for alternative interpretations consistent with RAW. I do believe this interpretation is consistent with RAW.

[Deophaun]

Not true. I can, and do, argue that something can still be a spell effect (noun) when a spell is no longer in effect (verb adjective).

/Grammar Nazi

[Darth Ultron]

Spells of 4th level and higher are not affected by the globe,nor are spells already in effect when the globe is cast.


So like if a Wizard has a flaming sphere spell active and rolling around the battle field....and another wizard casts a Globe of Invulnerability...

Then it will roll right through the ''globe'' and burn anyone inside, correct?

[Jowgen]

I too side with Necroticplague on this one. GoI is entirely it's own animal, wherein its oppression function is tied to spell level, time of casting, and that it be a spell/SLA or a magic items explicitly creating the effect of a spell.

As for the thing of it suppressing weird stuff, that only really becomes a factor when you deal with things that have Protective Aura (Su) of the Angel/Saint variety. Those things fuction (amongst other things) as lGoI, are mobile and have potentially unlimited duration. A saint who's had his aura active for a year is a serious saftey hazard, because if he walks into any structure that's partially made of spell effects of the right level (e.g. Coral Growth for a fortress), stuff just disappears or (arugably even worse) un-shapeds around him seemingly at random.

[Anthrowhale]

I too side with Necroticplague on this one. GoI is entirely it's own animal, wherein its oppression function is tied to spell level, time of casting, and that it be a spell/SLA or a magic items explicitly creating the effect of a spell.

As for the thing of it suppressing weird stuff, that only really becomes a factor when you deal with things that have Protective Aura (Su) of the Angel/Saint variety. Those things fuction (amongst other things) as lGoI, are mobile and have potentially unlimited duration. A saint who's had his aura active for a year is a serious saftey hazard, because if he walks into any structure that's partially made of spell effects of the right level (e.g. Coral Growth for a fortress), stuff just disappears or (arugably even worse) un-shapeds around him seemingly at random.

Coral Growth is Duration:Permanent, so I have no disagreement there. It's the instantaneous Conjuration(Creation) spells where I disagree. I think a Saint can drown in a lake formed by Create Water since the Saint's mobile GoI became active since the spells used to create the lake are no longer in effect. If you have a RAW quote indicating otherwise, I am interested.

[Necroticplague]

Can character in GoI drown by "create water" created outside of GoI? Can a character outside of GoI drown in "create water" then be resurrected when their body is brought into the GoI? Can a fireball start a fire that enters a GoI and burns things. Can a character be damaged outside of GoI by an SMIII monster then enter the GoI and have the wounds removed?
No, no, yes, no.

The water is a spell effect (because it's right in the effect line), so (assuming it was cast after the Globe) is excluded.

Resurrection is a high enough level that in hits through GoI, so I assume you mean something lower level, like Reincarnate. In that case, the spell targets the dead body, so can't work until the body is taken out of the GoI.

Any fire spreading isn't the fireball's area. The flames the fireball originally starts are (because it's part of the spells effect 'sets fire to combustibles....in the area'), but any 'spreading' is not a result of the Fireball spell, but the rules for fire spreading (assuming there are such. I'm not sure fire can spread in the rules).

The damage a summon inflicts isn't the Summon spell's effect. The monster itself is the effect (right there in the effect line).

[Anthrowhale]

No, no, yes, no.
Ok, we agree except for the first.


The water is a spell effect (because it's right in the effect line), so (assuming it was cast after the Globe) is excluded.

Yet, how can a spell be in effect when it's duration is over?

Just to be super clear, the timeline is:

GoI.
Create Water cast outside of GoI.
Create Water duration ends.
Created water drains into GoI and drowns-or-not GoI occupants.
GoI ends.

[Gullintanni]

Ok, we agree except for the first.

Yet, how can a spell be in effect when it's duration is over?

Just to be super clear, the timeline is:

GoI.
Create Water cast outside of GoI.
Create Water duration ends.
Created water drains into GoI and drowns-or-not GoI occupants.
GoI ends.


Occupant does not drown if the GoI was cast prior to Create Water. The water, so created, is a non-magical spell effect below fourth level, and so would be surpressed within the spell's area. The Orb line of spells are far more clear cut. The Orbs so produced, magical or not, are unambiguously spell effects. Their effects are instantaneous duration, so, by RAW, the creation of the spell effect and the resolution of the spell effect occur simultaneously (and would have no impact on one protected by a Globe of Invulnerability).

Walls of Iron, presuming they were of sufficiently low level to be effected by GoI, and the GoI were cast prior to the casting of the Wall of Iron, would not be an obstruction if any part of it overlapped with the GoI. As the wall is a spell effect, even though it is no longer sustained by magic, its presence would be surpressed by a GoI.

GoI does not surpress magic, it surpresses any byproduct of a spell that happens to be within its area and that happens to have come into being after the Globe's creation.

[Crake]

Occupant does not drown if the GoI was cast prior to Create Water. The water, so created, is a non-magical spell effect below fourth level, and so would be surpressed within the spell's area. The Orb line of spells are far more clear cut. The Orbs so produced, magical or not, are unambiguously spell effects. Their effects are instantaneous duration, so, by RAW, the creation of the spell effect and the resolution of the spell effect occur simultaneously (and would have no impact on one protected by a Globe of Invulnerability).

Walls of Iron, presuming they were of sufficiently low level to be effected by GoI, and the GoI were cast prior to the casting of the Wall of Iron, would not be an obstruction if any part of it overlapped with the GoI. As the wall is a spell effect, even though it is no longer sustained by magic, its presence would be surpressed by a GoI.

GoI does not surpress magic, it surpresses any byproduct of a spell that happens to be within its area and that happens to have come into being after the Globe's creation.

What I want to know is this: When the water created by create water is perfectly indistinguishable from normal water (because it is now, for all intents and purposes, normal water) how does the spell distinguish it?

Also, all of these interpretations make creatures who have a permanent, mobile globe of invulnerability have really strange effects. What if a building was made entirely through (for the purposes of argument a sanctumed, to make it 3rd level) Wall of Stone, followed by Fabricate? Sure, it was made 20 years ago, but this creature's globe of invulnerability has been in effect for millenia. Does that creature now simply walk through this structure and all the walls disappear? At what point does something cease to be "a spell effect" and become something mundane? I would agree with Anthrowhale and say that it's when the spell's duration ends. Now of course, globe of invulnerability would stop you from creating a wall of stone (or orb of acid) within it's area, but I don't think anyone's contending that.

[Necroticplague]

Ok, we agree except for the first.

Yet, how can a spell be in effect when it's duration is over?

Just to be super clear, the timeline is:

GoI.
Create Water cast outside of GoI.
Create Water duration ends.
Created water drains into GoI and drowns-or-not GoI occupants.
GoI ends.

The spell isn't in effect. However, the spell effect is still around. GoI doesn't affect spells in effect (that's AMFs job), it affects spell effects. That water will always be a spell effect.

[Anthrowhale]

The spell isn't in effect. However, the spell effect is still around. GoI doesn't affect spells in effect (that's AMFs job), it affects spell effects. That water will always be a spell effect.

Suppose an archivist casts a Sanctum Wall of Iron in a dungeon. A few years later some dwarves take over the dungeon and melt the wall of iron down mixing it with some iron ore and forge some masterwork items that are then enchanted to become magical suits of armor and swords. Some adventurers buy the items and enter a Timeless[magic] plane where they happen to walk through a GoI that has been in effect since before the Wall of Iron was formed.

What happens? If I understand correctly, under your interpretation there is some fraction of wall of iron sourced iron (100%? 90%? 75%? 50%? 25%? 1%?) under which the magic items weaken, cease to function, break, etc... The adventurers have no means available to test items for this hidden weakness yet they may suddenly and irrevocably lose nearly all their wealth by level.

Overall, this seems quite ad hoc to me. Wall of Iron does say:
Effect: Iron wall but I regard this as short hand for
Effect: Iron wall assembly as per the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#creation), making the ad hoc rule making unnecessary.

[Necroticplague]

What happens?

Nothing. Once the iron wall was melted down, it's no longer an iron wall, so it isn't the spell effect of Wall of Iron. Since it's no longer a spell effect, it can go through any GoI with no affect.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The consistency of the game universe is best served by ruling that instantaneous conjuration (creation) spells penetrate a globe of invulnerability.

RAW, I can see a case for the 'effect'/'in effect' distinction, but there's an equally decent case that they describe the same, which would mean a wall of iron ceases to be a spell effect once the spell's magic is done.

[Crake]

Nothing. Once the iron wall was melted down, it's no longer an iron wall, so it isn't the spell effect of Wall of Iron. Since it's no longer a spell effect, it can go through any GoI with no affect.

So if you boiled the water from create water it's also no longer the spell's effect? That makes no sense. Either the iron disappears in all circumstances, including the example above, or it doesn't. Make up your mind.

[Necroticplague]

So if you boiled the water from create water it's also no longer the spell's effect? Correct. At that point, it's steam, not water.

That makes no sense. Magic doesn't have to make sense.

Either the iron disappears in all circumstances, including the example above, or it doesn't. Make up your mind.
I have made up my mind: it disappears for as long as it's a spell effect. Since the relevant spell's effect is 'iron wall', it stops being a spell effect if it stops being an iron wall. Being an iron sword makes it not an iron wall anymore. The effect isn't simply 'iron'.

[Crake]

Correct. At that point, it's steam, not water.
Magic doesn't have to make sense.

I have made up my mind: it disappears for as long as it's a spell effect. Since the relevant spell's effect is 'iron wall', it stops being a spell effect if it stops being an iron wall. Being an iron sword makes it not an iron wall anymore. The effect isn't simply 'iron'.

So what if you melted the iron down, then made it into another kind of wall? What about if the steam condenses back into water?

[Necroticplague]

So what if you melted the iron down, then made it into another kind of wall? What about if the steam condenses back into water?

Then you'd be using things that aren't spell effects to make normal objects; I fail to see how those are relevant.

[Crake]

Then you'd be using things that aren't spell effects to make normal objects; I fail to see how those are relevant.

So what about when you chip the iron walll? It's now "Iron wall with a chip" does that mean it's no longer the "Iron wall" from the spell effect?

[Necroticplague]

So what about when you chip the iron walll? It's now "Iron wall with a chip" does that mean it's no longer the "Iron wall" from the spell effect?

An iron wall with a chip in it is still an iron wall. The chip would not be, however.

[Anthrowhale]

An iron wall with a chip in it is still an iron wall. The chip would not be, however.

At one extreme you have a pristine iron wall. At the other, you have a pile of chips. What is the point between these extremes where you no longer have an iron wall spell effect?

[Deophaun]

What is the point between these extremes where you no longer have an iron wall spell effect?
Wherever that point is, it's also where Orcus is. Smart players do not try to venture towards Orcus.

[Gullintanni]

What I want to know is this: When the water created by create water is perfectly indistinguishable from normal water (because it is now, for all intents and purposes, normal water) how does the spell distinguish it?

Also, all of these interpretations make creatures who have a permanent, mobile globe of invulnerability have really strange effects. What if a building was made entirely through (for the purposes of argument a sanctumed, to make it 3rd level) Wall of Stone, followed by Fabricate? Sure, it was made 20 years ago, but this creature's globe of invulnerability has been in effect for millenia. Does that creature now simply walk through this structure and all the walls disappear? At what point does something cease to be "a spell effect" and become something mundane? I would agree with Anthrowhale and say that it's when the spell's duration ends. Now of course, globe of invulnerability would stop you from creating a wall of stone (or orb of acid) within it's area, but I don't think anyone's contending that.

RAW frequently produces strange consequences. This is a side effect of bad editing. If you want to debate how the spell should be governed at a table for the most coherent outcome, we're not debating RAW anymore - we're applying reason to problematic writing, which, at the table, I'm all about. :) ...that said, this forum debates RAW, and so, on we go.

At a certain point, if you introduce Created Water into normal water, the volume of normal water is such that even if you surpressed all the spell effect water, then there would still be enough normal water remaining to drown in, and that's how I'd handle large bodies of water.

As for mobile GoI, then no, the Walls of Iron would not wholesale disappear, only the section of the Wall overlapping the GoI would vanish, and it would subsequently reappear when the GoI ceased overlapping the Wall's area. Permanent spell effects are surpressed within a Globes area. Which means that one protected by a permanent, mobile GoI would be able to walk through magically created walls so long as they were created after the GoI came into effect.

[Crake]

RAW frequently produces strange consequences. This is a side effect of bad editing. If you want to debate how the spell should be governed at a table for the most coherent outcome, we're not debating RAW anymore - we're applying reason to problematic writing, which, at the table, I'm all about. :) ...that said, this forum debates RAW, and so, on we go.

At a certain point, if you introduce Created Water into normal water, the volume of normal water is such that even if you surpressed all the spell effect water, then there would still be enough normal water remaining to drown in, and that's how I'd handle large bodies of water.

As for mobile GoI, then no, the Walls of Iron would not wholesale disappear, only the section of the Wall overlapping the GoI would vanish, and it would subsequently reappear when the GoI ceased overlapping the Wall's area. Permanent spell effects are surpressed within a Globes area. Which means that one protected by a permanent, mobile GoI would be able to walk through magically created walls so long as they were created after the GoI came into effect.

The argument here isn't about permanent spell effects, it's about instantaneous spell effects. The argument is that the effect is the act of assembling the conjured object, and that this instantaneous conjuration is no longer magical, and no longer a spell effect, but rather the result of the spell's effect, the same way mundane fires created by a fireball are the result of the fireball's effect, rather than the effect itself.

[fallensavior]

I think part of the problem here is a flawed consensus view regarding AMF and instantaneous conjurations.

AMF does indeed say "(The effects of instantaneous conjurations,...are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)"

This means the Wall of Stone, etc doesn't disappear when you move the AMF into/onto it. This does not mean you can cast Acid Splash into an AMF, because apart from the instantaneous conjuration clause, AMF also blocks line of effect for all spells.

I think applying this to both AMF and GoI makes for the most consistency across all situations. I realize the this ruling is contested, still I'll take Skip Williams's word on it over...whoever it was that compiled the Rules Compendium.

[fallensavior]

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050503a

When a spell is aimed into an area of antimagic from somewhere outside the area, the antimagic blocks line of effect for the spell

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040727a

Line of Effect: A straight, unblocked line between two locations on the battlefield. Line of effect is just like line of sight, except that restrictions on vision don't apply.

On the other hand, some things that you can see through can block line of effect, such as a wall of force or an antimagic field. Though the rules don't specifically say so, you always have line of effect to yourself.

In general, it takes a solid object to block line of effect (but immaterial things, such as antimagic fields can, too, as noted above)


Some might say "oh, I'm just throwing the acid, there's no magic to that" but that doesn't make sense, since it doesn't use the throwing rules (range increments and so forth).

[Deophaun]

Some might say "oh, I'm just throwing the acid, there's no magic to that" but that doesn't make sense, since it doesn't use the throwing rules (range increments and so forth).
Some might better say "Since AMF says it doesn't affect instantaneous conjuration spells, specific trumps general and it doesn't block their line of effect, because that would be affecting them."

[Gullintanni]

The argument here isn't about permanent spell effects, it's about instantaneous spell effects. The argument is that the effect is the act of assembling the conjured object, and that this instantaneous conjuration is no longer magical, and no longer a spell effect, but rather the result of the spell's effect, the same way mundane fires created by a fireball are the result of the fireball's effect, rather than the effect itself.

You're misinterpreting my use of the word permanent. I'm not referring to conjuration spells with a Duration: Permanent line, I'm using the word in its literal form. Wall of Iron is an instantaneous duration spell that creates a permanent spell effect. That said, given the context, my language was ambiguous.

Nevertheless, I'm of the opinion that the iron created by the spell IS the spell's effect. It doesn't stop being the spell's effect - semantically speaking - simply because the magic part of it is over. GoI specifically does not suppress magic, it suppresses spell effects.

The Wall of Iron spells Effect line reads: "Iron wall whose area is up to one 5-ft. square/level". It is therefore always true that, once the spell is cast, that that iron wall is the effect of the spell.

[Anthrowhale]

... GoI specifically does not suppress magic ...
Citation needed?

And just to reiterate: How many chips make it not a iron wall spell effect?

@fallensavior, I wasn't aware of the Rules of the Game vs. Rules Compendium conflict. Regardless though, I tend to side with Deophaun in allowing ranged attacks with orbs formed outside of an AMF and fired in based on magic only being used in orb formation and orb firing.

[fallensavior]

Some might better say "Since AMF says it doesn't affect instantaneous conjuration spells, specific trumps general and it doesn't block their line of effect, because that would be affecting them."

That's not what AMF says though.

It says it doesn't affect the effects of instantaneous conjuration spells, not that it doesn't affect those spells period.

Line of effect is not an effect.

[fallensavior]

GoI specifically does not suppress magic, it suppresses spell effects.

Actually...


...excludes all spell effects of 3rd level or lower.
...
Excluded effects include spell-like abilities and spells
or spell-like effects from items.
(emphasis added)