Tasha's Otherworldly Guise and Antimagic Field

[follacchioso]

My Orc wizard character is now level 12, and like many wizards, he is obsessed with being prepared for every situation.

One of his biggest fears is having to face an Anti-Magic field, which would render all his arcane powers useless. Direct damaging spells do not work, as they are dispelled by the field. Summons are also useless in this case; the majority of creatures created by Summon spells have melee attacks, and they would not be able to approach the antimagic fields. The few summons that have ranged attacks, like Summon Undead and Summon Aberration, have magical attacks that do not work in this case.

So, he barricaded himself in the library for weeks and discovered this spell: Tasha's Otherwordly guise. This spell would grant him a flying speed, useful for staying away from the source of the anti-magic field; and allows him to use common weapons effectively, like longbows or slings, using his Intelligence for attack and damage rolls. This would not make him as effective as a lv12 fighter, but he would give him an edge, and a chance to interrupt concentration on the anti-magic field, by shooting arrows or pebbles from far away.

In summary, my question is: would Tasha's Otherworldly Guise be a good spell against an Anti-Magic field? Would I still retain the extra attack and the usage of Int instead of Str/Dex for ranged attacks, when targeting something inside an Anti-Magic field?

[Unoriginal]

My Orc wizard character is now level 12, and like many wizards, he is obsessed with being prepared for every situation.

One of his biggest fears is having to face an Anti-Magic field, which would render all his arcane powers useless. Direct damaging spells do not work, as they are dispelled by the field. Summons are also useless in this case; the majority of creatures created by Summon spells have melee attacks, and they would not be able to approach the antimagic fields. The few summons that have ranged attacks, like Summon Undead and Summon Aberration, have magical attacks that do not work in this case.

So, he barricaded himself in the library for weeks and discovered this spell: Tasha's Otherwordly guise. This spell would grant him a flying speed, useful for staying away from the source of the anti-magic field; and allows him to use common weapons effectively, like longbows or slings, using his Intelligence for attack and damage rolls. This would not make him as effective as a lv12 fighter, but he would give him an edge, and a chance to interrupt concentration on the anti-magic field, by shooting arrows or pebbles from far away.

In summary, my question is: would Tasha's Otherworldly Guise be a good spell against an Anti-Magic field? Would I still retain the extra attack and the usage of Int instead of Str/Dex for ranged attacks, when targeting something inside an Anti-Magic field?

Anti-Magic Field would make Tasha's Otherworldly Guise have 0 effect while your PC is in the field.

You could use the Guise to attack from far away, but if that's your only reason to want the spell, just use the Catapult spell.

Way less investment for same usefulness.

EDIT: Please ignore the Catapult thing, I was wrong.

[Silly Name]

Would I still retain the extra attack and the usage of Int instead of Str/Dex for ranged attacks, when targeting something inside an Anti-Magic field?

Yes. The attacks aren't spells themselves, and the enhanchment is on you, not the target of your attack, so as long as you're outside of the AMF, you're golden. That said, if your goal is to be able to keep away from the AMF while also targetting creatures within it, just casting Fly on yourself and then using spells like Catapult is probably a more efficient use of spell slots.

Otherworldy Guise isn't a bad spell by any means, IMHO, but you may want to use when you need the extra boost in resistance than simply as a piece of anti-AMF tech

[follacchioso]

Yep, Catapult also works against an AntiMagic field, but 3d8 on a Dex save, no damage on a success, is not going to help much.

I think the best strategy in this situation would be to cause damage to the target and make them lose concentration on AntiMagic Field. Catapult is an option, but even upcasting it, it is unlikely to cause more than a DC10 Conc check. Anything able to cast an Anti-Magic spell will have strong defences and good conc checks, maybe legendary resistances.

Tasha's guise gives you much better chances at that. You get Extra Attack, and better attack/damage rolls. The flying speed also helps you stay away from the field. The only thing that is not clear to me is whether the ranged attacks will work. The spell description says
All your weapon attacks are magical,, but I think an arrow fired by somebody with this spell would still cause damage, unless there are other reductions.


Yes. The attacks aren't spells themselves, and the enhanchment is on you, not the target of your attack, so as long as you're outside of the AMF, you're golden. That said, if your goal is to be able to keep away from the AMF while also targetting creatures within it, just casting Fly on yourself and then using spells like Catapult is probably a more efficient use of spell slots.Thanks, this is what I wanted to confirm :-)

[Silly Name]

The only thing that is not clear to me is whether the ranged attacks will work. The spell description says
All your weapon attacks are magical,, but I think an arrow fired by somebody with this spell would still cause damage, unless there are other reductions.

The AMF would negate the "Magical" property of the attacks - so if something is inside the AMF and has Resistance or Immunity to damage from non-magical weapon attacks, that would apply - but every other aspect of this enhanchment would still apply, because it's about you, not the target of the attack.

[JackPhoenix]

Catapult doesn't ignore AMF. Its damage is still the effect of a spell. You target the object outside AMF, yes, but then it uses line AoE for the flight path, and that line can't extend into AMF. The magic moving the object will fail at the AMF's edge, and the object will fall on the ground, as if it had reached maximum range. Catapult doesn't follow conservation of momentum or regular physics.

[kingcheesepants]

Danse Macabre is a pretty decent summon for the purposes of getting around AMF. Get a bunch of skeletons and have em shoot their shortbows at the target from outside the field.

[Unoriginal]

Catapult doesn't ignore AMF. Its damage is still the effect of a spell. You target the object outside AMF, yes, but then it uses line AoE for the flight path, and that line can't extend into AMF. The magic moving the object will fail at the AMF's edge, and the object will fall on the ground, as if it had reached maximum range. Catapult doesn't follow conservation of momentum or regular physics.

After re-reading the two spells in question, this is correct.

I apologize, OP, I was wrong.

I was probably confused by the Beholder's ability to telekineticaly throw things at targets into their antimagic cone. Or by the fact Catapult has a range to target the item and a separate range for the item's flight path.

I suppose that "grabbing dangerous object of less than 1000 pounds, putting it above the AMF's center, then dropping it" could be situationaly useful.


Danse Macabre is a pretty decent summon for the purposes of getting around AMF. Get a bunch of skeletons and have em shoot their shortbows at the target from outside the field.

Danse Macabre-created Undead don't automatically have weapons, even if they use the MM statblock.

Can work if the corpse had a ranged weapon or if the Wizard has five extra ranged weapons and ammunitions nearby, but those are big "ifs".



In other words, I would say that follacchioso (and his Orc Wizard) has found the best spell to deal with Antimagic Field.

Congratulation, OP! It's quite a find.

[JackPhoenix]

Danse Macabre proves to be an effective summon, particularly for maneuvering through Anti-Magic Fields (AMF). Its strategy involves summoning a multitude of skeletons armed with shortbows to target foes from a safe distance outside the magical barrier.

{Scrubbed}

[Koury]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{Scrubbed}

[Unoriginal]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{Scrubbed}

[truemane]

Metamgaic Mod: if you suspect a post is a bot/AI, please just report and ignore. Don't engage with the post, and don't discuss it in-thread. We can't allow people to accuse other people of being bots or AI's (even if they're right and/or trying to be helpful) because it sets a precedent that's hard to roll back when someone else does it maliciously.

[Rukelnikov]

If your reason to choose Tasha's is because of improved martial capabilities against a target immune to magic, I think that's one of the few scenarios where Tenser's is actually better.

[Unoriginal]

If your reason to choose Tasha's is because of improved martial capabilities against a target immune to magic, I think that's one of the few scenarios where Tenser's is actually better.

It's not just immunity to magic, AMF shuts down the wizard's magic as well, meaning staying out of the AoE is just as important as being able to inflict damage.

Tenser's Transformation grants advantage to attacks and proficiency to all weapons, and makes it impossible for the wizard to cast other spells.

Tasha's Otherworldly Guise grants flight and makes INT the weapon stat.

Assuming that the wizard in question has no extra weapon proficiency, at level 12 that means:

Tenser's: two attacks at +(4+DEX mod) with advantage, longbow for 1d8+DEX at 150/600 range

Tasha's: two attacks at +(4+INT mod), sling for 1d4+INT at 30/120 range

Considering the AFM's 10ft radius, I don't think that having advantage on the attacks, a longer range and 2 points of damage more on average would make up for using a most-likely-less-high stat, not flying and having access to no other spell that could still help.

If it's an open field where the Wizard can take advantage of the longer range and longer duration, then Tenser's Transformation would have a slight edge, but other than that...

[JackPhoenix]

If your reason to choose Tasha's is because of improved martial capabilities against a target immune to magic, I think that's one of the few scenarios where Tenser's is actually better.

Not really. You won't get the mobility, which means whoever uses the AMF can close with you and turn off all your benefits (that may still happens if they've got non-magical means of flight), you won't have time to put on armor anyway, the extra damage doesn't work in AMF, and advantage is probably worse than than using your casting ability for attacks. 50 THP doesn't really make up for it.


Snip

And the longbow assumes you're dragging around a weapon you have no proficiency with and no use for vast majority of your time. A longbow isn't heavy, but it's certainly inconvenient to carry around.

[Rukelnikov]

Tenser's: two attacks at +(4+DEX mod) with advantage, longbow for 1d8+DEX at 150/600 range

Tasha's: two attacks at +(4+INT mod), sling for 1d4+INT at 30/120 range

Tenser's also adds 2d12 damage to every attack, so it's:

+7 with adv for 1d8+2d12+3 (20.5)
Vs
+9 for 1d4+5 (7.5)


Not really. You won't get the mobility, which means whoever uses the AMF can close with you and turn off all your benefits (that may still happens if they've got non-magical means of flight), you won't have time to put on armor anyway, the extra damage doesn't work in AMF, and advantage is probably worse than than using your casting ability for attacks. 50 THP doesn't really make up for it.

If keeping range is the problem then maybe get away beforehand? Armor and THP are irrelevant, the point was having a somewhat decent offensive option against a magic immune enemy and Tasha's was pointed as an option. I think Tenser's is a better option in that scenario with the possible exception of needing flight.


And the longbow assumes you're dragging around a weapon you have no proficiency with and no use for vast majority of your time. A longbow isn't heavy, but it's certainly inconvenient to carry around.

Is it? If you have Tenser's prepared you can carry a longbow, its less of an investment than spending a prep slot on a spell you are highly unlikely to cast.

[Unoriginal]

Tenser's also adds 2d12 damage to every attack

Not if the target is in an Antimagic Field.


the point was having a somewhat decent offensive option against a magic immune enemy

The point was having a somewhat decent offensive option against someone who is casting Antimagic Field.

That is very different from someone who is immune to magic, because there is a whole bunch of spells that can still affect the environment around the immune person, for example.



Is it? If you have Tenser's prepared you can carry a longbow, its less of an investment than spending a prep slot on a spell you are highly unlikely to cast.

I don't understand your point, why would you be more unlikely to cast Tasha's Otherworldly Guise than Tenser's Transformations?

Even if they never encounter an Antimagic Field-using enemy, the Tasha's is generally more useful.

[Rukelnikov]

Not if the target is in an Antimagic Field.

Why would that be suppressed and not the advantage on attack? Or Tasha's casting stat to attack?


I don't understand your point, why would you be more unlikely to cast Tasha's Otherworldly Guise than Tenser's Transformations? I was referring to Tenser's as the spell you are unlikely to cast, but if you are willing to spend a prep slot on it, carrying a bow just in case isn't a meaningful extra investment.


Even if they never encounter an Antimagic Field-using enemy, the Tasha's is generally more useful.

Definitely, its fly + extra defense and doesn't shut down your casting, but that's why I said in this specific scenario Tenser's is better.

[Unoriginal]

Why would that be suppressed and not the advantage on attack? Or Tasha's casting stat to attack?

Because the attack is made out of the field, so anything magical that affect the attack isn't suppressed. Meanwhile, the damages happen to the person inside the field, so anything magical that affect the damages would be suppressed.

Same way that if you use a +3 longbow and attack from outside the field you get +3 to the attack (magic isn't suppressed since the bow is used outside the field) but you wouldn't get the +3 to the damage (the lingering magic on the arrow is suppressed by the field before it hits the target).

Mmmh,it does mean Tasha's Otherworldly Guise wouldn't boost the damage, though, so that'd be 2 attacks + (4+INT mod) for 1d4+DEX mod. Which isn't better than what Tenser's Transformation can offer.



I was referring to Tenser's as the spell you are unlikely to cast, but if you are willing to spend a prep slot on it, carrying a bow just in case isn't a meaningful extra investment.

Fair point. If you have Tenser's ready to cast, having weapons around is basically part of the material components.


I guess ultimately the best counter to Antimagic Field is to be able to move a sharp stick at great speed without relying on magic.

[NecessaryWeevil]

After re-reading the two spells in question, this is correct.

I apologize, OP, I was wrong.

I was probably confused by the Beholder's ability to telekineticaly throw things at targets into their antimagic cone. Or by the fact Catapult has a range to target the item and a separate range for the item's flight path.



I'm curious why you think Catapult continuously moves the object magically, rather than simply imparting an initial momentum similar to throwing a rock. It seems to me that the spell description does not clearly spell out what is happening, so either could be correct.

[Unoriginal]

I'm curious why you think Catapult continuously moves the object magically, rather than simply imparting an initial momentum similar to throwing a rock. It seems to me that the spell description does not clearly spell out what is happening, so either could be correct.

Well the effect of the Catapult includes "the object flies in a straight line up to 90 feet", and the text of AMF states:


Spells and other magical effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the sphere and can't protrude into it. A slot expended to cast a suppressed spell is consumed. While an effect is suppressed, it doesn't function

Antimagic Field also states that a spell has no effect if you target someone inside the AMF with said spell, and Catapult states "On a failed save, the object strikes the target and stops moving".

[NecessaryWeevil]

Well the effect of the Catapult includes "the object flies in a straight line up to 90 feet",
Thanks for responding!
For the purposes of D&D physics, don't rocks and arrows (and things propelled by, well, catapults) also fly in a straight line, and stop moving when they hit something?



and the text of AMF states:
Antimagic Field also states that a spell has no effect if you target someone inside the AMF with said spell, and Catapult states "On a failed save, the object strikes the target and stops moving".

I grant that the language of Catapult refers to the creature struck as the "target," but the spell exerts its effect on the moving object, it requires the caster to choose an object (not a creature), it is the object and not the creature that must be in range of the spell, and in the "At Higher Levels" section it refers to the objects as "targets." So I think it's far from clear that the creature struck is the "target" for the purposes of AMF.

[Unoriginal]

Thanks for responding!
For the purposes of D&D physics, don't rocks and arrows (and things propelled by, well, catapults) also fly in a straight line, and stop moving when they hit something?

Depends on some factors. I know few DMs who would say that throwing a javelin at a paper screen means the javelin stops moving when it hits.


Point is that there is a big difference between "thrown things" and "spell-powered flying things".

[NecessaryWeevil]

Depends on some factors. I know few DMs who would say that throwing a javelin at a paper screen means the javelin stops moving when it hits.

Point is that there is a big difference between "thrown things" and "spell-powered flying things".

Certainly, but I'm still not convinced that the spell's projectile falls under the second category, as opposed to being thrown by the spell. Anyway, I don't mean to beat a dead horse.

[JackPhoenix]

Certainly, but I'm still not convinced that the spell's projectile falls under the second category, as opposed to being thrown by the spell. Anyway, I don't mean to beat a dead horse.

While D&D doesn't specify what happens to arrows once they miss the target or reach the maximum range, it's pretty safe to assume they follow the normal laws of physics and behave like any other object travelling in ballistic trajectory. The projectile from Catapult, however, flies in a straight line, and then just falls on the ground instantly at the end of that line. Moreover, the damage also doesn't fits a natural behavior of thrown object: It's always the same, regardless of the size, shape and composition of the object, and applies the same way to both the target and the projectile. An arrow, a piece of cloth or a 5 lb metal cube does the same bludgeoning damage, and the metal ingot will likely be destroyed (tiny resilient object has 5 hp, so there's a small chance it'll survive 3d8 damage) on impact with any solid object or creature, whether that's a sheet of paper, a glass window or an unfortunate fly that got in the way. That suggests that the behavior of the object is due to magic.

[Rukelnikov]

You could use Catapult to throw something so that it finishes its 90 ft directly above the creature, at that point it will fall on the creature naturally so there's no magic involved.

[Unoriginal]

You could use Catapult to throw something so that it finishes its 90 ft directly above the creature, at that point it will fall on the creature naturally so there's no magic involved.

Very true. That works so long as there is any space above the AMF, though the less space there is above the better you're off just throwing the thing mundanely.

Still, a jar of oil and/or alchemist's fire, or a bag of caltrops and/or ball bearings, dropping on top of the AMF-concentration-holding person from several stories above got to shake them up some.

[NecessaryWeevil]

While D&D doesn't specify what happens to arrows once they miss the target or reach the maximum range, it's pretty safe to assume they follow the normal laws of physics and behave like any other object travelling in ballistic trajectory. The projectile from Catapult, however, flies in a straight line, and then just falls on the ground instantly at the end of that line. Moreover, the damage also doesn't fits a natural behavior of thrown object: It's always the same, regardless of the size, shape and composition of the object, and applies the same way to both the target and the projectile. An arrow, a piece of cloth or a 5 lb metal cube does the same bludgeoning damage, and the metal ingot will likely be destroyed (tiny resilient object has 5 hp, so there's a small chance it'll survive 3d8 damage) on impact with any solid object or creature, whether that's a sheet of paper, a glass window or an unfortunate fly that got in the way. That suggests that the behavior of the object is due to magic.

I wonder if that's a game design decision for balance / simplicity, but fair enough, I accept that if the objects were merely thrown, then their mass would be a factor in the damage.

[DracoKnight]

So as a Chronic Gish EnjoyerTM, I've taken both Tenser's and Tasha's on multiple PCs... and I gotta say:

Of the two, Tasha's is definitely better against someone casting Anti-Magic Field... but the best defense against that spell is neither of those spells.

It's Counterspell.

[Unoriginal]

So as a Chronic Gish EnjoyerTM, I've taken both Tenser's and Tasha's on multiple PCs... and I gotta say:

Of the two, Tasha's is definitely better against someone casting Anti-Magic Field... but the best defense against that spell is neither of those spells.

It's Counterspell.

It's the best defense against all spells, short of putting the caster to 0 HPs before they can cast anything, but OP's assumption is that the AMF-user actually managed to cast it.

[DracoKnight]

It's the best defense against all spells, short of putting the caster to 0 HPs before they can cast anything, but OP's assumption is that the AMF-user actually managed to cast it.

Then I find their assumption flawed.

Especially if they want to play their wizard as paranoid and ready for anything.

[Aimeryan]

Then I find their assumption flawed.

Especially if they want to play their wizard as paranoid and ready for anything.

I remember the 3.5e trick with Shrink Item to have a cone sit on your head only to expand to an antimagic-blocking object when subjected to an antimagic effect, thus allowing the caster to use magic to escape. That was top-tier paranoid Wizard play.

[follacchioso]

Thanks all for the answers! I like this discussion.

My question originated from a scenario I just finished playing in a play-by-post game. My wizard and other characters faced a monk-like enemy who already had AMF active when the combat started. I didn't have neither Tasha's guise or Tender transformation available, and the most effective move was to use the Help Action to assist the rogue, triggering a couple of sneak attacks. It was a very tough fight, the enemy had +11 CON and legendary resistances, and we didn't manage to break concentration until they were down.

Overall, I prefer Tasha's Otherworldly Guise to Tenser, because it covers more bases - immunity to some types of damage, flight, AC. However my character is also carrying a shield, and the fact that Tasha's requires an expensive component makes it quite awkward to manage, as I don't have enough hands to hold shield, component, weapon, and ammos.

[Unoriginal]

Then I find their assumption flawed.

Especially if they want to play their wizard as paranoid and ready for anything.

"Ready for anything" means "ready for the worst case scenario too".

Optimally, any time an enemy caster starts casting, they get Counterspelled. But there is a lot of cases where it doesn't work or isn't possible.

AFM can be cast without OP's wizard being even in the room, for example.

[Chronos]

OK, now what about naturally-occurring dead magic zones, unassociated with a spell, that can be any shape or size?

[Unoriginal]

OK, now what about naturally-occurring dead magic zones, unassociated with a spell, that can be any shape or size?

Then the best counter is investing in your weapon-handling stats, and/or having more weapon and armor proficiencies than a single-class, non-Bladesinger Wizard.

Second best counter would be switching to using fire, acid, caltrops, ball bearings and the like.

[DracoKnight]

"Ready for anything" means "ready for the worst case scenario too".

Optimally, any time an enemy caster starts casting, they get Counterspelled. But there is a lot of cases where it doesn't work or isn't possible.

AFM can be cast without OP's wizard being even in the room, for example.

I mean, you are correct.

I just felt compelled to bring up Counterspell to cover all the bases.

Like I said in my initial comment: I like TT and TOG, and I'm actually very happy to see them discussed positively for once xD

[kazaryu]

It's the best defense against all spells, short of putting the caster to 0 HPs before they can cast anything, but OP's assumption is that the AMF-user actually managed to cast it.

not entirely true. shield is technically a better defense against magic missile because its cheaper...and works automatically regardless of if the caster upcasts MM.

[Unoriginal]

not entirely true. shield is technically a better defense against magic missile because its cheaper...and works automatically regardless of if the caster upcasts MM.

There are defenses that are better against some specific spells (ex: Shield of MM, Silence for thunder damage, etc), but none is better against all spells at once. Doubly so when you consider there are ways to go around those defenses (ex: changing damage type), but no way to go around Counterspell (you need to either have the dice in your favor or just prevent the conditions for its casting).

If you can cast Shield, then your opponent has already cast their spell. If you guessed correctly that it'd be a MM, then Shield is perfect. If it's an attack-roll-based spell, then Shield is very useful but can still result in you getting hurt. If it's neither then Shield is useless.

Counterspell is indeed more expensive (especially if you get baited into Counterspelling a spell that isn't worth it), but the fact it has a chance to work against all spells and that it completely shut down the spell is an overwhelming advantage compared to other defensive spells.

[kazaryu]

If you can cast Shield, then your opponent has already cast their spell. If you guessed correctly that it'd be a MM, then Shield is perfect. If it's an attack-roll-based spell, then Shield is very useful but can still result in you getting hurt. If it's neither then Shield is useless.

i mean...you don't guess with shield. the reaction is specifically triggered when you get hit with an attack, or are targeted by MM. you always know whats happening when you case shield. the only ambiguity is that you *might* get baited into casting shield vs a 1d10 firebolt, and therefore effectively waste the spell slot, but even that seems unlikely as...being hit with the attack kinda implies that you saw the attack happen.

other than that, i wasn't disputing that counterspell is stronger anti-spell protection in general. just pointing out that counterspell isn't the best defense against all spells. shield is objectively better against a magic missile that is targeted at you. i was being deliberately pedantic, intending it in a casual joking way. but i do understand how that may not have come across

[Unoriginal]

i mean...you don't guess with shield.

My apologies, I can see I misworded what I meant.

I meant it more as a "if you guessed correctly that you didn't need Counterspell and let the spell happen", but it seems I lost some of what I wanted to mean somewhere in the writing process.

[kazaryu]

My apologies, I can see I misworded what I meant.

I meant it more as a "if you guessed correctly that you didn't need Counterspell and let the spell happen", but it seems I lost some of what I wanted to mean somewhere in the writing process.

oh, fair enough, yeah. thats is true.

[Chronos]

But there are ways around Counterspell. You can cast from greater than 60' away, or you can cast multiple spells in a turn, or you can use your own counterspell on the counterspell.