"Invoke Magic", or how to trump Anti-Magic.

[St Fan]

After asking on the Simple RAW Thread, it became obvious the question was too complex and deserved its own thread, so let's delve into it fully.

It's about the "Invoke Magic" spelll from Lord of Madness, and how it works exactly. Here's the full description:




Invoke Magic

Evocation

Level: Sor/Wiz 9
Components: V, S, M,
Casting Time: 1 swift action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 round

You cause a flicker of magic to momentarily exist in a place where magic cannot normally function, such as within the area of an antimagic field, a dead magic area, or a null-magic plane.

This allows you the ability to cast a single spell of 4th level or lower, which then ends the spell's effect.

Casting invoke magic is a swift action, like casting a quickened spell.
You can perform only one swift action each round.
Normally, you cast invoke magic and then immediately follow it by casting another spell as a standard action.

Material Component: A diamond worth at least 1,000 gp.


The question is essentially, does the flicker of magic just allows the next spell to be cast and takes effect, or does it also protects it from the Antimagic Field subsequently if it's a spell with a duration?

As a reminder, an Antimagic Field spell (as well as dead magic areas or null-magic planes, which follow the same pattern) "suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration."

In the first case, if a spell cast with Invoke Magic is subsequently suppressed by Antimagic Field, it would make it useful only with instantaneous spells (mostly damage-inflicting or healing spells, as well as some others like Dimension Door). An interesting tactical advantage, as a 3rd or 4th-level offensive spell can still cause non-negligible damage, especially if the opponents are denied any magical protection. Still quite limited in scope, especially for a 9th-level spell with an expensive component.

In the second case, however, it would require for Invoke Magic to modify the nature of the subsequent spell itself, making it immune to anti-magic so that it stays active for its full duration. Please note that there is a precedent for this: god-tier magic, that is magic from Artifacts and Deities, can work unaffected in an Antimagic Field. Considering Invoke Magic is 9th-level, it being able to push the next spell into god-tier magic level doesn't seem too much of a stretch, but is it really the intent of the spell?

As usual, it essentially comes down to RAW versus RAI.

[heavyfuel]

I'd say that the very first line is pretty good indicator that non-instantaneous effects do not last. Invoke Magic allows for "a flicker of magic to momentarily exist".

Plus after you cast the 4th level spell, Invoke Magic ends ("which then ends the spell's effect")

So since the flicker of magic only lasts for a moment, and since Invoke Magic ends after the second spell is cast, effect with a duration are still suppressed by the AMF.

Also, if we go by strict RAW, there's nothing in Invoke Magic's text that says you can cast it inside the dead magic zone, since its casting would also be suppressed. It would only be useful if you, standing outside the dead magic zone, swift action cast Invoke Magic, then spent your move action to move into the zone, and only then cast the 4th level spell.

Going by strict RAW this spell is near useless.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The RAW seems straightforward to me. Normally you can't cast spells in an AMF because of the suppression effect, but Invoke Magic allows you to cast (itself and) a spell of level 4 or lower in that round. That's it. For the spell to defeat AMF's ongoing suppression effect, there would have to be a clause stating as much, and there is not. It's the same as a caster outside the AMF casting a duration spell and then entering the AMF; the spell is cast, then the effect is suppressed.

The idea that RAI wants the spell to grant artifact-level power is a stretch as well. The fluff very clearly states that you're allowing magic to function just long enough to cast a spell, and then the "flicker" of magic goes away. If I were a betting man, I'd wager the 4th level spell limit was specifically put in place with Dimension Door in mind, as the spell is essentially a rules-based way for higher level caster villains to get around a PC's casting of AMF.

Edit: Reply to heavyfuel
First, thanks for ninja'ing me. Second, I think specific trumps general when it comes to casting Invoke Magic in an AMF. Generally, AMF suppresses the effects of spells cast within its radius, but Invoke Magic specifically states otherwise.

[ezekielraiden]

I stand by my assertion that the simplest, most straightforward reading is that the next spell functions exactly as it would if there were no AMF at all. Two points of rebuttal to the above:
1. Descriptive fluff text is not part of RAW, and should not be used for a RAW determination. The actual rules-relevant text is as follows:

This allows you the ability to cast a single spell of 4th level or lower, which then ends the spell's effect.
Casting invoke magic is a swift action, like casting a quickened spell.
You can perform only one swift action each round.
Normally, you cast invoke magic and then immediately follow it by casting another spell as a standard action.
Material Component: A diamond worth at least 1,000 gp.

In contrast to the above posters, I note that because specific trumps general, and this spell specifically allows "a single spell of 4th level or lower" to be cast, without further limit or restriction, then the cast spell functions exactly as it would normally, including all durations etc. No limitation is mentioned for duration, thus RAW you can cast any 4th level spell.

2. If we did still use the opening descriptive fluff text, there is still a perfectly logical RAW reading that agrees with the above argument. Namely, as I said in the Q&A thread, that the "a flicker of magic to momentarily exist" bit simply refers to invoke magic's short period in which you may cast another spell; it's a magic capacitor, it discharges quickly if unused. The raw magical power is the only part that is momentary, but once tapped for a spell, it lasts as long as the spell does. Should you fail to tap it, the power is lost.

3. Ome further point. At the very least, the spell allows you to violate a null/dead magic zone for 6 seconds (one round), so it's not like the spell doesn't allow *any* delay. You could easily win Init, swift invoke magic, then ready whatever 4th level spell (instant or otherwise) with the trigger "when thr last opponent moves or attacks," and the effect will linger for most/all of that round. Note that it says you normally cast the subsequent spell immediately, not that you must do so.

~~~

Now, I fully grant that it may be RAI that only instantaneous or one-round etc. spells can be cast under Invoke magic. But RAI is not RAW, and the exact text is very clear that you can cast a 4th level spell.

[heavyfuel]

1. Descriptive fluff text is not part of RAW

Care to back that assertion up?

This is not "Magic: The Gathering". There's no distinction between fluff and rules. There's only text written in rule books, aka, rules text.


Edit: Reply to heavyfuel
First, thanks for ninja'ing me. Second, I think specific trumps general when it comes to casting Invoke Magic in an AMF. Generally, AMF suppresses the effects of spells cast within its radius, but Invoke Magic specifically states otherwise.

Always happy to ninja! :smallbiggrin:

But here's the thing... It doesn't say you can cast Invoke Magic inside the AMF. It only says that for the round during which it's cast you can cast a 4th level spell inside dead magic zones. So you'd need to first cast it without it being suppressed/counterspelled, and only then you'd have the power to cast inside the DMZ. It's stupid and dysfunctional RAW, but RAW nonetheless.

[ezekielraiden]

Care to back that assertion up?

This is not "Magic: The Gathering". There's no distinction between fluff and rules. There's only text written in rule books, aka, rules text.

I see it as self-evident. There are plenty of pieces of text in the book that are not rules text. There is no rules meaning to "flicker" or "momentary" not defined by either the (unquoted) preceding section where the duration is listed, nor the following (quoted) section. To *give* them an interpretation is to engage in RAI, because these are not rules terms.

Regardless, the core point stands: the spell says you can cast a 4th level spell. Where does it say there is a duration limit? I see no sentence which specifies anything about the subsequent spell, beyond the limit of 4th spell level and being cast during the same round as invoke magic.

(I do, however, agree with you that the spell is *at least* ambiguous about whether it can be cast inside an AMF or the like, because nowhere does it *say* you can, even though that's a presumption...of the very fluff text you are using for your conclusions.)

[Nifft]

I see it as self-evident. There are plenty of pieces of text in the book that are not rules text. There is no rules meaning to "flicker" or "momentary" not defined by either the (unquoted) preceding section where the duration is listed, nor the following (quoted) section. To *give* them an interpretation is to engage in RAI, because these are not rules terms.

Regardless, the core point stands: the spell says you can cast a 4th level spell. Where does it say there is a duration limit? I see no sentence which specifies anything about the subsequent spell, beyond the limit of 4th spell level and being cast during the same round as invoke magic.

(I do, however, agree with you that the spell is *at least* ambiguous about whether it can be cast inside an AMF or the like, because nowhere does it *say* you can, even though that's a presumption...of the very fluff text you are using for your conclusions.)

The trouble with being a hardliner like yourself is that the hardline cuts both ways, and in this case it cuts your side far more.

For example, your core point: "the spell says you can cast a 4th level spell", but it doesn't say the spell effect is able to occur in spite of the AMF or dead magic plane. So a close reading allows you to expend a 4th level spell slot with no effect.

A sufficiently strict RAW reading causes the Invoke Magic spell to become non-functional.

Would you like to step back and discuss how that fluffy interpretation stuff might allow the spell to actually work?

Believe me when I tell you: a non-functional game is also non-fun.

[Crake]

I stand by my assertion that the simplest, most straightforward reading is that the next spell functions exactly as it would if there were no AMF at all. Two points of rebuttal to the above:
1. Descriptive fluff text is not part of RAW, and should not be used for a RAW determination. The actual rules-relevant text is as follows:


In contrast to the above posters, I note that because specific trumps general, and this spell specifically allows "a single spell of 4th level or lower" to be cast, without further limit or restriction, then the cast spell functions exactly as it would normally, including all durations etc. No limitation is mentioned for duration, thus RAW you can cast any 4th level spell.

2. If we did still use the opening descriptive fluff text, there is still a perfectly logical RAW reading that agrees with the above argument. Namely, as I said in the Q&A thread, that the "a flicker of magic to momentarily exist" bit simply refers to invoke magic's short period in which you may cast another spell; it's a magic capacitor, it discharges quickly if unused. The raw magical power is the only part that is momentary, but once tapped for a spell, it lasts as long as the spell does. Should you fail to tap it, the power is lost.

3. Ome further point. At the very least, the spell allows you to violate a null/dead magic zone for 6 seconds (one round), so it's not like the spell doesn't allow *any* delay. You could easily win Init, swift invoke magic, then ready whatever 4th level spell (instant or otherwise) with the trigger "when thr last opponent moves or attacks," and the effect will linger for most/all of that round. Note that it says you normally cast the subsequent spell immediately, not that you must do so.

~~~

Now, I fully grant that it may be RAI that only instantaneous or one-round etc. spells can be cast under Invoke magic. But RAI is not RAW, and the exact text is very clear that you can cast a 4th level spell.

Note it says you can cast one spell. It doesn't say the spell treats the AMF as being non-existent, it merely allows the spell to be cast. Any effects that would normally be suppressed are then suppressed, but for example, it would let you cast charm monster on someone in a dead magic zone, and then when they leave it would resume it's effect. The spell is cast, it is affecting it's target, but the spell is still suppressed for the duration of the AMF, or until the subject leaves, as normal.

[ericgrau]

Always happy to ninja! :smallbiggrin:

But here's the thing... It doesn't say you can cast Invoke Magic inside the AMF. It only says that for the round during which it's cast you can cast a 4th level spell inside dead magic zones. So you'd need to first cast it without it being suppressed/counterspelled, and only then you'd have the power to cast inside the DMZ. It's stupid and dysfunctional RAW, but RAW nonetheless.

If you can't cast this from within an AMF, how do you cast it in a plane with no magic? Doing magic into a no magic plane from another plane seems like unlikely intent, and it would be explained more if that were so.

This is a guestimate, but I think the intent is that you may cast this spell and a 4th level spell even while standing inside an AMF. The spell takes effect, then if not instantaneous it is immediately suppressed. The suppressed spell could then continue if the AMF moves for example. Like the above charm monster example from Crake.

I don't think the 4th level spell lasts for 1 round, because the text says "which ends the spell's effect". And it looks like that 1 round is the time you have to cast the 4th level spell, within the duration of Invoke Magic. So the 4th level spell either gets an instant right before Invoke Magic ends, or it is imbued with the power to overcome the AMF indefinitely. Due to "You cause a flicker of magic to momentarily exist in a place where magic cannot normally function", I think it gets immediately suppressed after a brief instant to have an effect.

[Andezzar]

What Crake said. Plus a spell takes effect immediately after being cast, but some spells continue to take effect for a duration. Invoke magic allows the former but says nothing about the latter. So for the latter the normal rules for an AMF or dead magic zone apply meaning the effect is suppressed.

A fireball would be an edge case as it explicitly travels from the caster to the target location, but I think this would not work either.

[Pleh]

2. If we did still use the opening descriptive fluff text, there is still a perfectly logical RAW reading that agrees with the above argument. Namely, as I said in the Q&A thread, that the "a flicker of magic to momentarily exist" bit simply refers to invoke magic's short period in which you may cast another spell; it's a magic capacitor, it discharges quickly if unused. The raw magical power is the only part that is momentary, but once tapped for a spell, it lasts as long as the spell does. Should you fail to tap it, the power is lost.

This logic doesn't follow through for me.

Invoke Magic only allows another spell to be cast. It doesn't protect the spell afterword. That would require Invoke Magic's duration to at least match the spell it is protecting.

Which for instantaneous spells, it does.

[St Fan]

Yeah, as I thought, the opinions are divided.

I don't believe the spell is dysfunctional. The fact it explicitly can work in a dead magic zone or null-magic plane clearly mean the spark of magic itself can be invoked even within an anti-magic effect.

The question is mainly whether the subsequent spell is suppressed by the AMF or not.

Let's observe it from a different viewpoint: what is the interpretation that would be safer for game balance? The Invoke Magic spell is costly (and normal tricks to avoid costly components might not be usable in an AMF, like a Dweomerkeeper's supernatural spell).

Would it gives too much power to a wizard to be able to cast a few 4th-level (or lower) spells in a null-magic plane, and have those spells persist, for the cost of a 9th-level spell slot and a 1000 gp diamond each?

Some spell of 4th level or less can have a lengthy duration (for example, shrink item). There are even a few which are permanent (like bestow curse or blindness/deafness). The fact that most of the inhabitants of the null-magic plane wouldn't have access to magic to cure them has to be weighted in too, but is it fully game-breaking?

[heavyfuel]

I see it as self-evident. There are plenty of pieces of text in the book that are not rules text. There is no rules meaning to "flicker" or "momentary" not defined by either the (unquoted) preceding section where the duration is listed, nor the following (quoted) section. To *give* them an interpretation is to engage in RAI, because these are not rules terms.


There are no rules for a bunch of things.

As an exercise, let's see the Cloud of Knives spell. A cloud is never defined in the rules, and neither are knives for that matter.

Also, the spell makes no sense if you completely ignore the italized text. "Each round as a free action at the beginning of your turn, you can release one of these knives..."

Wait. What knives? If you ignore "fluff text" (which is not a thing) there are no knives for you to release. Also, "release" is not a defined game term either.

Not every word has to be defined. All text is rules text.


If you can't cast this from within an AMF, how do you cast it in a plane with no magic? Doing magic into a no magic plane from another plane seems like unlikely intent, and it would be explained more if that were so.

I know. That's precisely what I am criticizing. Pure RAW doesn't work for this spell, it requires a much more sensible approach

[Lapak]

I don't think the text is particularly ambiguous, and you can count me in the 'spell can be cast, but non-Instantaneous effects are suppressed as long as the target is in the anti magic area' column. That leaves plenty of latitude to do things without undermining the basic mechanic. You can heal someone, blast them with fire, teleport yourself away with Dimension Door, and so on. If you can find a 4th-level spell that inflicts effects with a duration beyond the spell's own, it will work just fine. (Holy Word being a good example but too high level; Stinking Cloud could plausibly work for its post-cloud duration on those who fail their save in the brief moment the cloud exists.)

[ezekielraiden]

The trouble with being a hardliner like yourself is that the hardline cuts both ways, and in this case it cuts your side far more.

For example, your core point: "the spell says you can cast a 4th level spell", but it doesn't say the spell effect is able to occur in spite of the AMF or dead magic plane. So a close reading allows you to expend a 4th level spell slot with no effect.

A sufficiently strict RAW reading causes the Invoke Magic spell to become non-functional.

Would you like to step back and discuss how that fluffy interpretation stuff might allow the spell to actually work?

Believe me when I tell you: a non-functional game is also non-fun.

I agree that a functional spell is better than a nonfunctional one. I'm also of the opinion that this requirement that the subsequent spell must be instant is hardly more charitable than the requirement that it be cast outside the AMF/etc. Where RAW is ambiguous, RAI is all we have to guide us, though I still hold that the logical application of "specific beats general" means this spell, which expressly breaks the rules of AMFs/etc., simply works as described.

The spell says you definitely can cast a 4th level spell. Therefore, by SBG, you can break the normal rule with this spell--and we know SBG is RAW, *not* just RAI. However, since this exception to the general rule does not explicitly state any restrictions on what kind of spell, there are none when this spell is in play. The only way to get the instantaneous restriction is by assuming that the subsequent spell definitely must end as soon as invoke magic does, which is circular (the requirement is assumed in order to defend it).

More or less, I don't see my practical view (allowing casting the spell in an AMF/etc., yet also treating the "must be instant" interpretation as inaccurate) rather than "reading nothing but the text itself" (on which I agree about the ambiguity of whether it can or can't be used in an AMF/etc.) as illogical or trapped in any way. We know the spell must have a function, and SBG permits that function without any abrogation of the explicit text. We know that the spell permits a 4th level spell, and makes no explicit restrictions on what that spell can be. For example, if a 17th level Wizard/3rd level Cleric wanted to cast a divine spell, would you conclude that that was impossible because this is a Sor/Wiz spell and thus only a Sor/Wiz spell could be cast? I see a "yes, the text explicitly forbids any non-Sor/Wiz spell" answer to that question as equally unsupported as saying that words like "flicker" and "momentary" have enough mechanical weight to explicitly forbid non-instant spells.

Note that I have bolded most every use the word "explicit" here. Working off the implications of the text is, as far as I've ever known, clearly RAI territory. If you disagree with that, we will never agree on how to apply the rules of this spell (and a lot of other things besides).

[Darth Ultron]

The question is essentially, does the flicker of magic just allows the next spell to be cast and takes effect, or does it also protects it from the Antimagic Field subsequently if it's a spell with a duration?


As written....nothing about this spell works.

The spell Invoke Magic creates a ''flicker of magic" in a non magical area....it sounds OK...except you can't cast the spell in a non magical area. And sure you can dance around and say you ''can'' cast the spell, but it does not really matter: the non magical areas suppress ANY spell. So that would mean you can't have the magical effect of this spell to get the flicker of magic effect of this spell.

I guess, by RAW, the spell might have a very limited and a bit pointless use of "If your caught in a non magical place you can cast Invoke Magic and then cast a 4th level or less spell on yourself...that is immediately suppressed. If the spell you cast as a long enough duration, then, if you leave the non magical area the spell cast will effect you normally.

This spell needs a major Rewrite to:


Magical Contingency

Duration: One day/level (D) or until discharged

This spell places a small bit of potential magic inside the spellcaster, able to be released at will, as a swift action. The bit of potential magic causes a brief flicker of magic to momentarily exist in a place where magic cannot normally function, such as within the area of an antimagic field, a dead magic area, or a null-magic plane.

The flicker of magic allows you to cast a single spell, of any level, with a casting time of a standard action and a range of personal, you or touch(self only).

Casting invoke magic is a swift action, like casting a quickened spell.
You can perform only one swift action each round.
Normally, you cast invoke magic and then immediately follow it by casting another spell as a standard action.

Material Component: A diamond worth at least 1,000 gp.



There, see, now basing the spell off Contingency works much better as you don't have to cast the spell in a non magical place. You cast it before hand, and it sits and waits.

Limiting it to just caster targeted spells only makes sense, as does allowing it to effect spells of any level.

Now, at least a caster can plane shift or teleport or such OUT of the non magical area.

[John05]

The specific trumps the generic. That's a rule I've found for most complex card and board games.

E.g. a generic rule in MTG gets trumped by specific text of a single card.

In this case, the generic rule that magic cannot be cast in an Antimagic Field or Dead Magic Area, but this spell was written after those rules existed and is also specifically addressing and acknowledging the existence of those extant rules.

Fluff-wise, I'd say that having the spell prepared or even known basically means you have sort of extra battery/store of mana in you (9th level, which is an enormous amount of mana) used to power a single, much weaker 4th level spell. Much of the lost power is used to overcome the suppressive effects of an AMF or the lack of latent power in air of a DMA to draw power from.

[Mato]

After asking on the Simple RAW Thread, it became obvious the question was too complex and deserved its own thread, so let's delve into it fully.That's because GitP doesn't have a simple raw thread, it has a public consensus that accepts a 20% input for a simple majority.

Like take Heavyfuel's rebuttal in the 5th post. Flavor text for spells often sits in it's own paragraph and is italicized, and all of the spells in Lords of Madness do not have any, but despite this he feels like he needs to argue with ezekielraiden's bit on the description. Darth Ultron, the 16th post, wants to argue nothing in the spell works and it is completely useless because you have to cast it from outside an AMF because he cannot comprehend the fact that it is one of two things in D&D that allows you to effectively cast spells into an AMF. People just need to stop trying to post a disagreeance with what they think they seen in someone else's post, it's not helpful. But arguing with what people say is how GitP debates. The rules rarely matter.

Invoke magic allows you, if you are outside of an AMF so you can gain the benefit of it, to cast any 4th level spell in such a way that it behaves normally even if it's brought into an AMF. "Momentary" is a completely meaningless term because it is entirely subjective to each person that reads it, like a moment to you might be 6 seconds or 31 years to a a dead magic zone which exists forever if left alone. Instead you need to find an objective quantifier, such as how invoke magic allows you to cast any 4th level spell in an area where it would not normally function. If your 4th level spell's normal is ten minutes per caster level, then that's the objective meaning of a "moment".

[ezekielraiden]

The specific trumps the generic. That's a rule I've found for most complex card and board games.

E.g. a generic rule in MTG gets trumped by specific text of a single card.

In this case, the generic rule that magic cannot be cast in an Antimagic Field or Dead Magic Area, but this spell was written after those rules existed and is also specifically addressing and acknowledging the existence of those extant rules.

Fluff-wise, I'd say that having the spell prepared or even known basically means you have sort of extra battery/store of mana in you (9th level, which is an enormous amount of mana) used to power a single, much weaker 4th level spell. Much of the lost power is used to overcome the suppressive effects of an AMF or the lack of latent power in air of a DMA to draw power from.

More or less my view as well, just more succinct.

[Nifft]

We know the spell must have a function, (...)

This is the flaw which undermines your line of reasoning.

There are feats and other character options which do nothing at all. There's a juicy one right in the Core rules.

No particular bit of text is under any obligation to have a function. It's natural to look for one, but there is no actual necessity that any such thing exists.

There is no necessary function for this spell, nor for any other arbitrary snippet of text. If a rule is sufficiently poorly written (or poorly thought out), it's quite possible that there is no functional behavior possible. That's the ugly truth.

[ezekielraiden]

There is no necessary function for this spell, nor for any other arbitrary snippet of text. If a rule is sufficiently poorly written (or poorly thought out), it's quite possible that there is no functional behavior possible. That's the ugly truth.

Then there is no point in discussing it: you dispute that there is even anything to discuss, and I'm not interested in that kind of online slap-fight. So I will rephrase the bit of mine you quoted as, "If you agree that we know the spell must have a function..."

For those who don't, they can, er, enjoy the non-spell that results alongside you. For those that do, something actually doable results, from an entirely official rule approach (specific beats general).

[Nifft]

Then there is no point in discussing it: you dispute that there is even anything to discuss, and I'm not interested in that kind of online slap-fight. So I will rephrase the bit of mine you quoted as, "If you agree that we know the spell must have a function..."

For those who don't, they can, er, enjoy the non-spell that results alongside you. For those that do, something actually doable results, from an entirely official rule approach (specific beats general).

The spell can work fine, with DM interpretation and support.

But there is no strict / hardline / purist RAW version of the spell which does anything even remotely useful.

If you want the spell to work, you must abandon the idea that you can rules-lawyer your DM into compliance by having a slap-fight at the table.


RAW the spell does nothing.

RAI it's pretty damn interesting.


So if you want the spell to be useful, come back to the warm hearth of RAI and discuss what it should do, not what RAW can enforce upon your unwilling game referee. RAW won't win this table-top tussle.

Luckily games don't actually run on RAW, and this really is lucky because RAW a whole lot of dumb dysfunctions would happen.

There's no need to agree that every spell must have a function (which would probably cause other problems). Just care more about intent and don't try to force RAW.

[ezekielraiden]

The spell can work fine, with DM interpretation and support.

But there is no strict / hardline / purist RAW version of the spell which does anything even remotely useful.

If you want the spell to work, you must abandon the idea that you can rules-lawyer your DM into compliance by having a slap-fight at the table.


RAW the spell does nothing.

RAI it's pretty damn interesting.


So if you want the spell to be useful, come back to the warm hearth of RAI and discuss what it should do, not what RAW can enforce upon your unwilling game referee. RAW won't win this table-top tussle.

Luckily games don't actually run on RAW, and this really is lucky because RAW a whole lot of dumb dysfunctions would happen.

There's no need to agree that every spell must have a function (which would probably cause other problems). Just care more about intent and don't try to force RAW.

It's...I'm not trying to force anything. The question was asked in the thread about RAW. Therefore, the only answers appropriate are those about RAW. If the poster had wanted RAI, they would have looked elsewhere. Or am I being a fool here? Is RAI actually what the thread that specifically says "RAW" in title is for?

Edit: Which is to say, I find that neither RAI nor RAW is what tables do, but rather RAU: Rules As Understood (or Used, if you prefer). The understanding or use of rules is informed by both RAI and RAW, but not determined by either. It may cleave to one, the other, or neither. Alternatives like Rule of Cool and Rule of Fun are often invoked in RAU. But that sort of thing cannot be discussed in any meaningful sense except between the players and their DM; outsiders can provide commentary, which might sway someone's thinking, but it is in the end an agreement between player and DM that matters, and only their consent produces used results.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Also, if we go by strict RAW, there's nothing in Invoke Magic's text that says you can cast it inside the dead magic zone, since its casting would also be suppressed. It would only be useful if you, standing outside the dead magic zone, swift action cast Invoke Magic, then spent your move action to move into the zone, and only then cast the 4th level spell.

Going by strict RAW this spell is near useless.
I think this is the case by RAW.

The Initiate of Mystra feat has the following text: "If this [CL] check [to cast a spell] is successful, your spell functions normally". A similar rule is absent in invoke magic, and I don't think it's a fair assumption to make, especially when it's been explicitly mentioned in the other cast-in-an-AMF ability. I do, however, think that invoke magic was intended to do the same thing as Initiate of Mystra, and would be more balanced if it did, so I would change the spell as follows:
(1) Duration changed to "1 round or until discharged".
(2) Add clause "You may cast this spell despite "antimagic conditions": within the area of an antimagic field, a dead magic area, or a null-magic plane" at the very start.
(3) Change second sentence to "You gain the ability to cast a single spell of 4th level despite prevailing antimagic conditions. The spell takes effect normally for its entire duration. Casting this single spell discharges invoke magic".

I'm not sure it's dysfunction-proof, but it's better than the vanilla version.

[ezekielraiden]

I think this is the case by RAW.

The Initiate of Mystra feat has the following text: "If this [CL] check [to cast a spell] is successful, your spell functions normally". A similar rule is absent in invoke magic, and I don't think it's a fair assumption to make, especially when it's been explicitly mentioned in the other cast-in-an-AMF ability. I do, however, think that invoke magic was intended to do the same thing as Initiate of Mystra, and would be more balanced if it did, so I would change the spell as follows:
(1) Duration changed to "1 round or until discharged".
(2) Add clause "You may cast this spell despite "antimagic conditions": within the area of an antimagic field, a dead magic area, or a null-magic plane" at the very start.
(3) Change second sentence to "You gain the ability to cast a single spell of 4th level despite prevailing antimagic conditions. The spell takes effect normally for its entire duration. Casting this single spell discharges invoke magic".

I'm not sure it's dysfunction-proof, but it's better than the vanilla version.

Very much agreed. The original is definitely poorly-written...but so were a lot of things across 3rd edition's lifespan. (Hell, 4e and 5e both have their sour notes, writing-wise, which is why the former had such a comprehensive errata document. And, of course, people got upset that there was so much errata!)

Your version is dramatically better. As you say, probably not foolproof, but anyone who declares something foolproof is only proving they're a fool, eh? :smallwink:

[St Fan]

The Initiate of Mystra feat has the following text: "If this [CL] check [to cast a spell] is successful, your spell functions normally". A similar rule is absent in invoke magic, and I don't think it's a fair assumption to make, especially when it's been explicitly mentioned in the other cast-in-an-AMF ability. I do, however, think that invoke magic was intended to do the same thing as Initiate of Mystra, and would be more balanced if it did, so I would change the spell as follows:
(1) Duration changed to "1 round or until discharged".
(2) Add clause "You may cast this spell despite "antimagic conditions": within the area of an antimagic field, a dead magic area, or a null-magic plane" at the very start.
(3) Change second sentence to "You gain the ability to cast a single spell of 4th level despite prevailing antimagic conditions. The spell takes effect normally for its entire duration. Casting this single spell discharges invoke magic".

I'm not sure it's dysfunction-proof, but it's better than the vanilla version.

Oh yeah, forgot about Initiate of Mystra... that's another case whose effects aren't entirely clear.

I fully agree that Invoke Magic needs GM adjudication before being used at all. Your interpretation above looks good, and may be well what was intended.

However, I also see possibilities of abuse within it. For example, with this version, if planning to venture on a null-magic plane (and not just being dropped in it unexpectedly), could a wizard use Invoke Magic in advance with several permanent or long-lasting spells to equip the party? I can see the GM frowning hard...

[ExLibrisMortis]

However, I also see possibilities of abuse within it. For example, with this version, if planning to venture on a null-magic plane (and not just being dropped in it unexpectedly), could a wizard use Invoke Magic in advance with several permanent or long-lasting spells to equip the party? I can see the GM frowning hard...
I think that's okay, because all magic items and even a druid's wild shape (for example) would be suppressed on a dead magic plane--the power loss is still massive, even with invoke magic. Burning all your ninth-level spells (that, to be fair, you can't cast on that plane anyway) to provide some basic buffs--overland flight, heart of water, and so on--won't so much be "overpowered" as "finally a reason to not avoid dead magic planes like the plague".

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I'd rather use a Ravenloft device scroll of Persistent planar bubble, myself.

[zlefin]

just my 2c, I'm on the side that says an ongoing spell could be cast, but its ongoing effects would still be suppressed while in the Anti-Magic.

this would make it low-utility with ongoing spells
There are still some interesting potential uses for that though; if the AMF is going to end or it's a very long duration spell which could then kick in unexpectedly and surprise someone.

or maybe use your own AMF source, use this so someone loses access to all their save boosters so you can hit them with something nasty and they have to make the save then, but then you turn off your AMF so the effect activates.