Casting Dimension door inside antimagic field?

[Almostdead]

An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it.

and


The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.

Since antimagic field only suppress the effect of a spell, and the effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected. I presume you can cast Dimension door inside antimagic field and teleport out of it?

[Elves]

That reading fails syntactically -- it doesn't make sense to say something is "no longer in effect" before it's happened. Dimension door falls under the "used within" clause.

[heavyfuel]

No. You still can't cast inside an AMF

[Kelb_Panthera]

and



Since antimagic field only suppress the effect of a spell, and the effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected. I presume you can cast Dimension door inside antimagic field and teleport out of it?

You cannot cast a spell in an antimagic field at all, with a few very specific exceptions.

You can cast a spell whose effect is an instantaneous conjuration into an antimagic field, provided the magical effect doesn't originate in the AMF. Dim door is a conjuration with an instantaneous duration but the magic that makes it function would have to do so inside the field whether trying to jump in or out and that can't happen.

The kind of things you can use to take advantage of this are things like hail storm or the orb of X spells; spells that conjure up a thing outside the field and then fling them into it.

[tyckspoon]

and



Since antimagic field only suppress the effect of a spell, and the effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected. I presume you can cast Dimension door inside antimagic field and teleport out of it?

This is my reading of the text, but as you can tell from the rest of the thread it is not a popular interpretation. It is also incredibly unintuitive and counter to what most people expect something called 'Antimagic Field' should do, so don't count on being able to do this in a live game.

[Almostdead]

You cannot cast a spell in an antimagic field at all, with a few very specific exceptions.

You can cast a spell whose effect is an instantaneous conjuration into an antimagic field, provided the magical effect doesn't originate in the AMF. Dim door is a conjuration with an instantaneous duration but the magic that makes it function would have to do so inside the field whether trying to jump in or out and that can't happen.

The kind of things you can use to take advantage of this are things like hail storm or the orb of X spells; spells that conjure up a thing outside the field and then fling them into it.

By RAW, antimagic field only "suppresses any spell or magical effect". It doesn't prevent you from casting, just any spell that you cast takes no effect (except The effects of instantaneous conjurations).

Is there a really strong evidence that supports "You cannot cast a spell in an antimagic field at all", or just public opinion?

[Fizban]

This is a basic enough question you need to actually check more than just the 3.5 FAQ, because a number of questions were answered before 3.5 and were not transposed- from the 3.0 FAQ:

Does antimagic field actually prevent the casting of a spell
from within the field? That is, does the spell automatically
fail, and is it wasted?
No. An antimagic field suppresses magic used within,
brought into, or cast into its area, but it does not dispel it (see
the second paragraph of the spell description).
And Rules Compedium doesn't have line that overrules this, on a quick check.

It's one of the reasons I've always found the "power" of Archmage sculpted Antimagic Field funny.

Edit: To be clear though, I wouldn't allow Dim Door'ing while in the field, because the instantaneous spell is suppressed for the entirety of its duration. But you can totally cast duration spells on yourself or at touch range in the field and have them pop up when the field moved/ends/etc (because you automatically have line of effect to yourself, and by my interpretation, anything you touch). And fwiw, I also ignore the rubbish about Orbs ignoring AMF and magic immunity and everything else, because I want antimagic/immunity to mean something.

[Elves]

Surprising. There is this from RC: "If an instantaneous spell is entirely suppressed, that spell is effectively canceled. (It’s suppressed, and its duration instantaneously expires.)"

Arguably then, it's not entirely suppressed because "the effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected". The but, however, is that this is in a section describing how area overlaps interact with antimagic, so the "entire" there is likely referring specifically to its area. Copy-pasting the rest of that paragraph for context:


An instantaneous area spell is only entirely suppressed and effectively canceled if its point of origin is within the antimagic area. Otherwise it works like any other area spell that has a point of origin outside the antimagic area—only where its area overlaps the antimagic area is its effect is suppressed.

[Anthrowhale]

My understanding is that an instantaneous conjuration spell is entirely suppressed where its area overlaps with an AMF. In other words Hail of Stone cannot effectively damage someone in an AMF.

The orbs however can affect someone in an AMF if cast outside the AMF since they are created externally and then fired inside the AMF. Similarly, a Wall of Iron could be cast externally to an AMF and then toppled on someone inside an AMF.

[Almostdead]

For instantaneous "area" spell that originate inside AMF, it is suppressed alright. But what about the instantaneous "Target: You" spell? There is not even a point of origin and it teleports you instantly.

I don't want to be a lawyer but I need to know if the interpretation is RAW, RAI or just public opinion.

[sleepyphoenixx]

For instantaneous "area" spell that originate inside AMF, it is suppressed alright. But what about the instantaneous "Target: You" spell? There is not even a point of origin and it teleports you instantly.

I don't want to be a lawyer but I need to know if the interpretation is RAW, RAI or just public opinion.
The AMF suppresses any spell cast inside it. The exception is for the effects of instantaneous conjurations, not the spells themselves.
If you're standing in an AMF and cast Teleport or Dimension Door (or anything else) it's suppressed, regardless of school, area or target.

By my interpretation of the RAW you can dim-door or teleport into an AMF - the effect, teleportation, is not affected - but you can't teleport out of one because the spell itself is suppressed so the effect doesn't happen.

The only ways i know of that let you teleport out of an AMF are Invoke Magic, the Initiate of Mystra feat and the Shadow Hand teleport maneuvers from ToB because they're extraordinary.

[Anthrowhale]

The Shadow Hand teleport is Ex.

I'd rule that you can't teleport into an AMF since arrival at your destination is a part of the effect and the effect is suppressed.

Invoke Magic also plausibly doesn't work when it is cast inside of the AMF since it is suppressed before you get to cast a second spell. You surely could stand outside the AMF and Invoke Magic a Fireball (for example) to get some surprise roasting action.

[Biggus]

AMF says it "prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines". That seems pretty clear to me: the spell doesn't function, so it doesn't teleport you.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I'd rule that you can't teleport into an AMF since arrival at your destination is a part of the effect and the effect is suppressed.
Teleport is an instantaneous conjuration, the effects of those aren't suppressed in AMF.
It's no different than shooting an Orb of X into an AMF, only you're "shooting" yourself.


Invoke Magic also plausibly doesn't work when it is cast inside of the AMF since it is suppressed before you get to cast a second spell. You surely could stand outside the AMF and Invoke Magic a Fireball (for example) to get some surprise roasting action.
Invoke Magic works because it explicitly says it works in AMF, as does the spell it allows you to cast. That's the whole point of the spell.

[Anthrowhale]

Teleport is an instantaneous conjuration, the effects of those aren't suppressed in AMF.

Can you find a rule backing this up? Because otherwise
An antimagic field suppresses any spell ... used within, brought into, or cast into the area... says otherwise.



It's no different than shooting an Orb of X into an AMF, only you're "shooting" yourself.

Orbs are conjuration(creation) so the SRD 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. Hence, after the orb is created AMF has no effect on it. It happens to be created with a velocity which is why it's useful for shooting someone in an AMF.

Teleport isn't a conjuration(creation) spell and it has an effect (you magically appear) inside the AMF so it doesn't work on both accounts.


Invoke Magic works because it explicitly says it works in AMF, as does the spell it allows you to cast.
Do you have a quote? Invoke Magic says:

You cause a flicker of magic to momentarily exist in a place where magic cannot normally function...This allows you the ability to cast a single spell of 4th level or lower, which then ends the spell's effect.
I see nothing explicit here.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Can you find a rule backing this up? Because otherwise says otherwise.
From the text of AMF:

(The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)
It doesn't specify a subschool so it applies to all of them. Teleport is a conjuration and it's instantaneous.
You're not casting it inside the AMF. You can't bring it into the AMF because it's instantaneous. You're not casting it into the AMF because the target is you.
You cast it and the effect (teleportation) drops you off inside.

Edit: It also makes sense from a lore perspective. According to MotP teleportation magic works by transporting you through the astral plane, which AMF doesn't extend to.
Any magic happening at your destination would be on the astral side, by the time you're through it's already over.

Do you have a quote? Invoke Magic says:

I see nothing explicit here.
What version are you looking at? Because my copy of LoM has this:

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.
Though even without that AMF is pretty obviously "a place where magic doesn't normally function", that being its purpose.

[Mike Miller]

quote.

Welcome back Fizban!

To echo previous comments, casting inside an AMF is very difficult. Options are quite limited, such as the level 9 spell that lets you cast a level 4 or less inside an AMF

[Anthrowhale]

From the text of AMF:
This is confusing if you aren't familiar enough with English. In English a parenthetical means it's an explanatory implication of existing rules rather than a primary rule. The primary rules say that the effects of instantaneous conjuration(creation) spells do not require magic after creation with the explained implication that they function inside an AMF. Similarly, if you teleport next to (not into) an AMF, cast a cure light wounds spell on yourself, and then walk into the AMF you do not unteleport or unheal.

It's also important to realize that Antimagic Field suppresses casting as well as spell effects.

An antimagic field suppresses any spell ... cast into the area.
So, even if you read the parenthetical as a primary rule (after all, it is a valid implication), it says nothing about casting an instantaneous conjuration into the AMF. Instead, it just talks about the effects. Hence, the general rule for AMF still applies.

Let me add that the Antimagic section in the Rules Compendium uses different (clearer) wording and is consistent with this understanding.


What version are you looking at? Because my copy of LoM has this:

That's consistent with what I see. "Explicit" would mean something like: "Unlike all other spells, Invoke Magic can be cast within an Antimagic Field." You are arguing that it's implicit (not explicit). An argument exists there, but it's vague---I could see DMs going either way. The spell does have a function even if you can't cast it inside an AMF because it allows an L4- spell to be cast into the AMF. For example, you could dimension door into the AMF.

[Fizban]

Welcome back Fizban!
I have returned. /dragoon voice (that's Starcraft 1 dragoon).

Regarding Invoke Magic, I think the best indication of the designer's intent is to consider the book it's in: Lords of Madness. A large section of which is about Beholders, which have an antimagic cone, which does not cover themselves. In what situation involving a Beholder would a high level sor/wiz most likely need something to ignore antimagic? That'd be when they're stuck in the Beholder's antimagic cone. Thus it is most likely Invoke Magic is meant to be castable and effective from the inside.

Back to Dimension Door- I was gonna say that the fact that you can Plane Shift to a dead magic plane suggests you should be able to land in an AMF, but the dead magic trait (Manual of the Planes) actually says you can't teleport in and the only exceptions are permanent planar portals, so apparently not. And as for Shadow Hand teleport maneuvers, I could have sworn someone had a citation that proved they're supposed to be supernatural, but I'm probably mis-remembering and it was in fact the opposite.

Personally while I wouldn't allow teleporting out, I'm inclined to allow teleporting in, because I find it amusing. Too many things treat giant AMFs as some super security measure, nah. If you want to prevent teleporting in, you Dim Lock the place or use other countermeasures. If you want to suppress magic used in the area, you use AMF/etc. With dead magic preventing teleports I'd actually rule further that portals don't work either and you need natural planar boundaries to get in/out.


For instantaneous "area" spell that originate inside AMF, it is suppressed alright. But what about the instantaneous "Target: You" spell? There is not even a point of origin and it teleports you instantly.

I don't want to be a lawyer but I need to know if the interpretation is RAW, RAI or just public opinion.
The instantaneous conjuration line is from a paragraph discussing the effects upon summoned creatures, which should make the intent pretty clear: they're talking about what happens to things temporarily created by magic, and that things instantaneously created by magic are unaffected. The wording is not clear enough for there to be one single "RAW" interpretation else there would be no question, but there is what I'd call pretty clear intent, which means attempts to ignore it are the colloquial "lawyering."

It doesn't sound like you're the DM, in which case it's going to have to go through them regardless. If this is something for the future, bring it up in discussion and see how your DM is running it before you commit to anything. If this is something happening right now, well you get to do the same thing but with the DM knowing that their ruling is going to have a direct and immediate impact and maybe it'd be better to make a rule change. Unless they've already made plans that include large AMFs and expect those to prevent teleportation, it shouldn't actually make much difference outside the moment.

[sleepyphoenixx]

This is confusing if you aren't familiar enough with English. In English a parenthetical means it's an explanatory implication of existing rules rather than a primary rule. The primary rules say that the effects of instantaneous conjuration(creation) spells do not require magic after creation with the explained implication that they function inside an AMF. Similarly, if you teleport next to (not into) an AMF, cast a cure light wounds spell on yourself, and then walk into the AMF you do not unteleport or unheal.
I'm not talking about the general rule, i'm talking about the rule right in the description of AMF. Which applies to all instantaneous conjurations, it doesn't specify a subschool.
So if you can cast an Orb of Force into an AMF (which i assume we agree on being true) i don't see why you can't do the same with a teleport (which doesn't even target anything inside the AMF, it targets the caster).


It's also important to realize that Antimagic Field suppresses casting as well as spell effects.
Yes, inside the AMF. Since we're talking about teleporting into the AMF from outside of it and the casting - being instantaneous - is finished before Teleport moves you that aspect never comes into play.
There's no spell to suppress.
There's an effect - namely being teleported - but Teleport is conjuration and it's instantaneous and AMF explicitly doesn't suppress the effects of those.


So, even if you read the parenthetical as a primary rule (after all, it is a valid implication), it says nothing about casting an instantaneous conjuration into the AMF. Instead, it just talks about the effects. Hence, the general rule for AMF still applies.
You're not even casting anything into the AMF. As i said teleport spells universally target the creature being teleported, not the location they're being moved to.


Let me add that the Antimagic section in the Rules Compendium uses different (clearer) wording and is consistent with this understanding.
I'm going to need a quote on that since i'm not seeing anything there that answers the question.


That's consistent with what I see. "Explicit" would mean something like: "Unlike all other spells, Invoke Magic can be cast within an Antimagic Field." You are arguing that it's implicit (not explicit). An argument exists there, but it's vague---I could see DMs going either way. The spell does have a function even if you can't cast it inside an AMF because it allows an L4- spell to be cast into the AMF. For example, you could dimension door into the AMF.
I really don't see how "such as antimagic field" is in any way vague. It seems obvious to me that the point of Invoke Magic is that you can cast a single spell in an area where you otherwise couldn't.
This is especially glaring when you consider that it also references dead-magic areas and null-magic planes, places you generally can't cast a spell into from the outside.
So to be able to do what the spell description says it does it needs to work inside of AMF.

[Anthrowhale]

I'm not talking about the general rule, i'm talking about the rule right in the description of AMF.
Your quote was for a parenthetical, which means it is an implication, not a rule.


You're not even casting anything into the AMF. As i said teleport spells universally target the creature being teleported, not the location they're being moved to.

You're claiming a very particular mechanism for how Teleport works with the feature that no magic is used at the destination. This particular mechanism is not a part of the rules. It is consistent with fluff, but there are other interpretations of fluff like "magic checks the destination to resolve mis-teleports" and "magic inserts you from the Astral plane" which are plausibly more consistent.

More generally though, you shouldn't use a hypothesized mechanism to resolve the rules. Instead, you should just use the rules. AMF is quite clear that casting into the AMF is forbidden. The act of creating a spell effect is casting.


I'm going to need a quote on that since i'm not seeing anything there that answers the question.

What you are seeing is a lack of support for your proposed interpretation since the parenthetical implication is not there. If it was a rule, then it or something to the same effect would be there.


It seems obvious to me that the point of Invoke Magic is that you can cast a single spell in an area where you otherwise couldn't.
No one is disputing this. What's unclear is whether Invoke Magic says Invoke Magic can be cast inside of an AMF. It's certainly not explicit. I wouldn't have a problem with a DM arguing either way.