Question about Archmage and Mastery of Shaping

[Crow]

If an Archmage uses Mastery of Shaping to exclude himself from the area of an Antimagic Field, can spells that affect an area still affect the Archmage? Or do they get stopped by the Antimagic Field (As it's area would be a bubble around the Archmage)? What about spells that specifically target the Archmage?

[CactusAir]

If an Archmage uses Mastery of Shaping to exclude himself from the area of an Antimagic Field, can spells that affect an area still affect the Archmage? Or do they get stopped by the Antimagic Field (As it's area would be a bubble around the Archmage)? What about spells that specifically target the Archmage?

some line of effect spells may be able to hit him (due to rules confusion)... burst or spreads definately can NOT, IIRC. Orbs can still pass through AMF's just fine.

[TheOOB]

An antimagic sphere with the mage not targeted would allow the mage to use beneficial spells on them self, but not much else. A spell must have line of effect to effect someone, and AMF blocks line of effect for just about every spell except instantaneous creation effects.

[Cuddly]

Could you dominate a monster on the other side of an AMF?

[Crow]

I am (as always) thinking about taking a few levels of Archmage for my Gish. Got myself a nice new shiny level up, and I think this may be what I'm looking for.

I can't help but feel this might be a good contingency option as well, but the rules are somewhat silent on the issue (they tend to interprit the battlefield 2 dimensionally, in which case the Archmage is exposed).

[Talic]

Could you dominate a monster on the other side of an AMF?

No. You don't have Line of Effect. However, if the creature were already Dominated, the effect would persist, unless the creature entered the AMF.

[Reel On, Love]

Antimagic fields actually don't block line of effect--as of the Rules Compendium, at least, if they did before.

[Crow]

Antimagic fields actually don't block line of effect--as of the Rules Compendium, at least, if they did before.

That doesn't make sense! :smallconfused:

[tyckspoon]

That doesn't make sense!

It's how I've always reasoned it. It's based on two factors. The first is that Antimagic fields don't block line of sight- they aren't physical impediments to seeing your target. The second is that the effect is to suppress, not dispel, which specifically means the magic is still there and still potent, it just can't do anything within the field of the AMF. A dispelling AMF would break line of effect in the same manner as a solid barrier, by intercepting and ending the spell before it reached its target. The suppressing field doesn't do that, so you can safely cast into or through the area of an AMF. It just won't do anything within the AMF's area.. but that caster in the middle who thought he could Shape himself a bolthole is in for a nasty shock.

Or you could just figure the guy who compiled that particular part of the Rules Compendium thought Shaped AMFs were excessively cheesy and wanted to deny them, and go on ruling on antimagic fields in whatever way makes the most sense to you. The Compendium wasn't released as official errata, after all (probably intended to be, but not actually put up with the rest of the errata on the Wizards site.)

[Talic]

It's how I've always reasoned it. It's based on two factors. The first is that Antimagic fields don't block line of sight- they aren't physical impediments to seeing your target. The second is that the effect is to suppress, not dispel, which specifically means the magic is still there and still potent, it just can't do anything within the field of the AMF. A dispelling AMF would break line of effect in the same manner as a solid barrier, by intercepting and ending the spell before it reached its target. The suppressing field doesn't do that, so you can safely cast into or through the area of an AMF. It just won't do anything within the AMF's area.. but that caster in the middle who thought he could Shape himself a bolthole is in for a nasty shock.

Or you could just figure the guy who compiled that particular part of the Rules Compendium thought Shaped AMFs were excessively cheesy and wanted to deny them, and go on ruling on antimagic fields in whatever way makes the most sense to you. The Compendium wasn't released as official errata, after all (probably intended to be, but not actually put up with the rest of the errata on the Wizards site.)

The description on AMF is that is actively smooths the weave in it's area, nullifying magic... As it's not official errata, I'd say there's wiggle room for interpretation either way, since D&D doesn't have an MRP rule.