PDA

View Full Version : Anti-Anti-Magic Field



Burley
2008-03-27, 03:04 PM
Okay, so, I'm furious about Anti-Magic Fields all of a sudden. Randomly, yes. Unfounded, I don't think so. I'm playing a wizard, and, though it isn't a problem now, I've realized that my character will become completely useless in one of these areas. For non-casters, maybe their armor and weapons lose potency, but they still are able to perform their main purpose. Even without that wonky feat that lets clerics cast inside AMFs, divine casters (clerics, druids and even favored souls) are able to hold their own in combat, at least for a little while. But...my poor wizard! Even my familiar loses his bonuses, which makes my character even suckier! So friggin' lame!

So, is there ANY way for me to get around that? Besides standing outside and conjuring stuff into it?

Solo
2008-03-27, 03:05 PM
Okay, so, I'm furious about Anti-Magic Fields all of a sudden. Randomly, yes. Unfounded, I don't think so. I'm playing a wizard, and, though it isn't a problem now, I've realized that my character will become completely useless in one of these areas. For non-casters, maybe their armor and weapons lose potency, but they still are able to perform their main purpose. Even without that wonky feat that lets clerics cast inside AMFs, divine casters (clerics, druids and even favored souls) are able to hold their own in combat, at least for a little while. But...my poor wizard! Even my familiar loses his bonuses, which makes my character even suckier! So friggin' lame!

So, is there ANY way for me to get around that? Besides standing outside and conjuring stuff into it?

Wall of Force, as discussed on the Monk Balance Test thread.

Ascension
2008-03-27, 03:13 PM
Alternatively, learn to accept that every character has a certain role, and your role is not operating in an anti-magic field. If the rogue doesn't complain when operating in a trap-free environment, if the barbarian doesn't complain when operating in a social environment, if the cleric doesn't complain when enemies ask "Where is your god now?!?", then the wizard shouldn't complain when operating in a magic-free environment. You'll get your chance to shine soon enough.

Reel On, Love
2008-03-27, 03:14 PM
1) On the other hand, you get to own the rest of the time.

2) Instantaneous conjurations are your friend.

3) Yes, AMFs are Bad Game Design. Don't feel too bad, though--everyone's useless in an AMF. Seriously, the Fighter's AC becomes what? Monsters will eat him for lunch.

SilverClawShift
2008-03-27, 03:17 PM
Anti-Anti-Magic Field

Trace-buster-buster

Solo
2008-03-27, 03:17 PM
Alternatively, learn to accept that every character has a certain role, and your role is not operating in an anti-magic field. If the rogue doesn't complain when operating in a trap-free environment

I wasn't aware rogues were rendered completely useless in a trap free environment.

Ascension
2008-03-27, 03:18 PM
I wasn't aware rogues were rendered completely useless in a trap free environment.

The wizard still has knowledge checks?

Solo
2008-03-27, 03:19 PM
The wizard still has knowledge checks?

"Hey guys! I know we're in an antimagic field, and that huge monster over there is going to kick our collective asses!":smalltongue:

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-03-27, 03:25 PM
By leaving the AMF and casting Instantaneous Conjurations into it.

By tricking your opponent to leaving the AMF if he is a caster and then hitting him with your spells while he stands outside it.

Chronos
2008-03-27, 03:28 PM
Wall of Force, as discussed on the Monk Balance Test thread.There is some debate as to whether a spellcaster inside an anti-magic field can cast spells. While the strict reading of the text does not forbit it, many folks consider that an error, since the rules do say that it's impossible to use spell-like abilities.

I believe there's also a 9th-level spell (Invoke Magic, I think it's called?) that lets you ignore an antimagic field for a single spell. But a 9th level slot is a steep price to pay, and there's a lot of playtime before it even becomes an option.

At lower levels, stock up on a few good alchemical items. Alchemy in D&D is regarded as nonmagical, so your Tanglefoot Bags and Thunderstones will work just fine.


3) Yes, AMFs are Bad Game Design.Well, if every single adventure takes place in an anti-magic dungeon, just to keep the wizard in check, that's a sign that something's wrong with the game, but an occasional AMF, in moderation, is not necessarily unreasonable (for the DM to throw at the players, or for the players to try to prepared for).

AmberVael
2008-03-27, 03:30 PM
"Hey guys! I know we're in an antimagic field, and that huge monster over there is going to kick our collective asses!":smalltongue:

Rogue: "Truly we would have no chance in this fight but for your herculean intellect!"

Barbarian: "AGGH! KRUG SWORD NOT BURNEY!"

AKA_Bait
2008-03-27, 03:34 PM
Rogue: "Truly we would have no chance in this fight but for your herculean intellect!"

Barbarian: "AGGH! KRUG SWORD NOT BURNEY!"

Cleric: Huh. Where'd god go?

Tokiko Mima
2008-03-27, 03:34 PM
Note: The category of "Instantaneous Conjurations" does not just include summoning walls anymore. Thanks to WotC moving Teleportation from transformation school (3.0) to conjuration school (3.5) it also includes the entire line of teleport spells, so one of the best counters to an AMF is to teleport out of an AMF, then teleport back accompanied a horde of highly spell resistant summoned monsters, who, due to the quirk of the way RAW works, all retain their supernatural/magic features as long as they make their spell resistance checks.

Burley
2008-03-27, 03:41 PM
Okay, how about: Is there any way to make spell-like abilities useful in Anti-Magic Fields? My wizard just happens to also be a Dragonfire Adept (Gestalt).

Cruiser1
2008-03-27, 03:44 PM
At lower levels, stock up on a few good alchemical items. Alchemy in D&D is regarded as nonmagical, so your Tanglefoot Bags and Thunderstones will work just fine.
You can also attack with your light crossbow, Aid Another (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#aidAnother) in combat, or provide flanking (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#flanking). A Wizard in an antimagic field is similar to a Wizard who's run out of spells, where it's good to be prepared for both situations.

Ascension
2008-03-27, 03:45 PM
Cleric: Huh. Where'd god go?

Bard: Hey, at least it's not silence!

Fighter: Hey, at least it wasn't a rust monster!

Rogue: Hey, at least it's not immune to precision damage!
Everyone Else: Uhh... it's an anti-magic field. You don't attack it.
Rogue: No sneak attack?
Everyone Else: Uh-uh.
*rogue cries*

Really, I posted far too quickly. I should've said "if the rogue doesn't complain when facing undead, constructs, oozes, etc." Crit-immune monsters stink.

Reel On, Love
2008-03-27, 03:50 PM
Okay, how about: Is there any way to make spell-like abilities useful in Anti-Magic Fields? My wizard just happens to also be a Dragonfire Adept (Gestalt).

No. Not even your Supernatural breath weapon works. You're pretty much totally screwed.

Frosty
2008-03-27, 03:57 PM
You can also attack with your light crossbow, Aid Another (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#aidAnother) in combat, or provide flanking (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#flanking). A Wizard in an antimagic field is similar to a Wizard who's run out of spells, where it's good to be prepared for both situations.

You want the *wizard* to provide flanking? wtf? With a whip or something so he an do it from 15ft away?

senrath
2008-03-27, 04:03 PM
Well, Epic Spells have a decent chance to ignore antimagic fields, unless they were cast by an epic character as well...

And if you fill up all of your ninth level slots with Disjunction, you should be able to remove the field eventually, provided you can step outside it.

Dubie
2008-03-27, 04:05 PM
Quite honestly, its pretty much the only thing that handycaps a wizard completely. I wouldn't complain too much about it, since a wizard can pretty much nuke the entire world on a whim the rest of the time....

Breaw
2008-03-27, 04:11 PM
Wait what? There's a specific situation where a wizard can't esplode the world and fly away? That's poor game design!!!

My suggestion: Stop trying to play a character that can win in any possible scenario presented and take a step back. No literally, take a step back out of the anti-magic field.

There are most often ways of bending rules that aren't precisely worded to get around them. This is an entertaining thought experiment and an exercise in careful reading and critical thinking. This is not fun. This is a game. If your DM presented a situation where there is an anti-magic involved he/she may be trying to give you guys a challenge that won't be 1 rounded by a bad roll on a save or suck spell. As a general rule I pretty much just say anti-magic means magic doesn't work, deal with it.

If bending rules to get out of situations is a game you and your DM enjoy playing then more power to you. In many situations it may just lead to your DM railroading you instead. "You area all captured, they take your gear and your spellbook, you don't have any more spells memorized today."

Anyway, just wanted to reiterate that discussing holes in game mechanics is an interesting thought experiment that is very at home in boards like these. However, that is exactly what you are asking: "How can I use magic when/where I'm not allowed to use magic". Perfectly reasonable on the boards, it can get a bit tiring in game.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-03-27, 04:19 PM
And if you fill up all of your ninth level slots with Disjunction,

A Bad Idea.

Jes' sayin'.

senrath
2008-03-27, 04:23 PM
A Bad Idea.

Jes' sayin'.

Yeah, I know. But it would technically work. Anyway, thats why I prefer spontaneous casters. Fewer spells known (usually) but the ability to pull out your spells as needed, instead of guessing ahead of time.

sikyon
2008-03-27, 04:24 PM
This is an entertaining thought experiment and an exercise in careful reading and critical thinking. This is not fun.

Says you.

Anyhow, you can cast through an antimagic field, and maybe you can cast at targets outside an antimagic field from within (debatable by the term "used").

Besides, what's going to hurt you in such a field? Su/Sp/Magic items don't work in it. If someone uses this against you, just move away (10ft radius) and then use a swift action like your contingency (to teleport away, of course).

Antimagic field doesn't just cripple wizards, it cripples the user, too.

Frosty
2008-03-27, 04:28 PM
Sculpted AMFs for the win.

AKA_Bait
2008-03-27, 04:34 PM
Depends upon the user. Where I, say, a red Dragon I would be very happy with an AMF around my lair. Breath weapons are Supernatural.

senrath
2008-03-27, 04:35 PM
Depends upon the user. Where I, say, a red Dragon I would be very happy with an AMF around my lair. Breath weapons are Supernatural.

Yup. And AMF nullifies supernatural abilities.

NEO|Phyte
2008-03-27, 04:35 PM
Breath weapons are Supernatural.
And thus unusable in an AMF.

Breaw
2008-03-27, 04:39 PM
Says you.


To be clear, I also said:

If bending rules to get out of situations is a game you and your DM enjoy playing then more power to you.

There certainly is something to power-gaming. I certainly have my fair share of discussions about solutions to problems that deep down you know shouldn't work, but aren't prohibited by the relevant rules.

However, unless you have a DM and a full party interested in sidestepping the challenges presented to you, it will feel an awful lot like you are cheating. I tend to try to play under an assumption of reasonability, this assumption precludes the possibility of magic in anti-magic fields.

FinalJustice
2008-03-27, 04:41 PM
Well, create/buy a Wand of Orb of Force. If the creature doesn't have natural flying speed, fly and proceed to unload the wand. Keep a force cage prepared, if you can fit the creature inside it, it is doomed. But NO, DO NOT use Disjunction, unless if you are facing like, two AMFs a session. Respect mutual destruction agreements, or be prepared to lose your stuff after hours making saving throws for each magic item you have. Disjunction is that bad.

AKA_Bait
2008-03-27, 04:42 PM
Yup. And AMF nullifies supernatural abilities.

Ah, my bad. I'll just go with the claws, teeth and DR then. :smallbiggrin:

Tokiko Mima
2008-03-27, 04:45 PM
Okay, how about: Is there any way to make spell-like abilities useful in Anti-Magic Fields? My wizard just happens to also be a Dragonfire Adept (Gestalt).

The only way I can think of to do it off hand would be to summon (not call) yourself or a clone of yourself, and have spell resistance. Having done this, it would them be easy to get an item of permanent Greater Spell Immunity (Anti-Magic Field) and never worry about AMF's again.

The trick would be getting yourself summoned by yourself when normally you can't request a specific individual creature. Maybe you could shapechange into a monster whose name you just made up, then summon one?

Come to think of it, if this had been done before by someone else it could explain some of the more bizarre creatures out there, like the lion paw wheel one.

senrath
2008-03-27, 04:53 PM
Well, create/buy a Wand of Orb of Force. If the creature doesn't have natural flying speed, fly and proceed to unload the wand. Keep a force cage prepared, if you can fit the creature inside it, it is doomed. But NO, DO NOT use Disjunction, unless if you are facing like, two AMFs a session. Respect mutual destruction agreements, or be prepared to lose your stuff after hours making saving throws for each magic item you have. Disjunction is that bad.

How is disjunction that bad? First, you can aim it pretty well so that it just touches the antimagic field. And second:

All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined.

Craig1f
2008-03-27, 04:54 PM
Finally the Barbarian and Fighter get their chances to shine.

But not the ranger.

"I'll just shoot him with my bow. Oh crap, my quiver is magic, and all my arrows are stored in an extra dimensional space that I don't currently have access too. Son of a ..."

Draz74
2008-03-27, 04:57 PM
I think the AMF should be a partial process, not an absolute all-or-nothing.

Similar to the Psionic Power Catapsi.

For example, a medium-strength AMF could say that all spells must be cast from a spell slot 4 levels higher than usual. So, congrats, now your Wizard can cast his prepared Ray of Enfeeblement spell, but it takes a Level 5 spell slot. And if he's 15th level, he can only cast spells up to Level 4 (which count as Level 8 in the field).

Admittedly, it's a bookkeeping nightmare for prepared casters. But that's just yet another reason why I think prepared casters are bad game design anyway.

Draz74
2008-03-27, 05:00 PM
How is disjunction that bad? ... And second:

You're quoting a post that involved the term, "mutually assured destruction." The idea is that, if you use Disjunction, your DM will use it back at you.


But not the ranger.

"I'll just shoot him with my bow. Oh crap, my quiver is magic, and all my arrows are stored in an extra dimensional space that I don't currently have access too. Son of a ..."

Hopefully, in the low-competition environment that is an AMF, the Ranger can actually do not too badly in melee.

If not (low CON?), ... I guess you'll have to keep some mundane backup arrows.

FinalJustice
2008-03-27, 05:02 PM
How is disjunction that bad? First, you can aim it pretty well so that it just touches the antimagic field. And second:

Mutual destruction agreement, if he uses Disjunction, his DM may feel like using it too, that's when everybody loses.

Edit: Ninja'd

senrath
2008-03-27, 05:04 PM
You're quoting a post that involved the term, "mutually assured destruction." The idea is that, if you use Disjunction, your DM will use it back at you.


Considering you'd most likely have to use quite a few Disjunctions to blast through an AMF, I'd say that a DM who hits you with Disjunction back for doing so would just be petty.

Talya
2008-03-27, 05:16 PM
Ah, my bad. I'll just go with the claws, teeth and DR then. :smallbiggrin:

You know, I can't find it now, but I was sure Dragon DR was also (Su)...

Talic
2008-03-27, 05:18 PM
I wasn't aware rogues were rendered completely useless in a trap free environment.

A Trap-free environment, filled with undead with lifesense?

Talic
2008-03-27, 05:32 PM
You know, I can't find it now, but I was sure Dragon DR was also (Su)...

Sure is. If a DR is beaten by Magic or an aligned weapon, it's SU.

However, dragons do get epic feats easily, which are generally EX.

And wait for the 24HD dragon with a level of barbarian, prehensile tail, and perfect multiweapon fighting. Requires a slightly more dextrous than average dragon (inherent ability boosts to Dex), however, with a level of lion totem barbarian, and a mouthpick battle axe, you only add +1 CR, and also gain elite array. 25 PB an 18 dex, and a modest str and con, and have a slightly dumber than average dragon....

Now, with Power attack/shock trooper, you get a full attack with every weapon you have at full attack bonus, and you can hold a weapons as follows:
Claw (battleaxe, sized to you)
Claw (battleaxe, sized to you)
Bite (mouthpick battleaxe, sized to you)
Tail (battleaxe, sized to you)

Each attack will take a -4 penalty, but that looks like 16 attacks a round, on a charge, in an antimagic zone. Watch players cry.

If the dragon has enough sorceror casting, he can even cast it himself.

Pronounceable
2008-03-27, 10:53 PM
3) Yes, AMFs are Bad Game Design.

Nope, wizards are Bad Game Design.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-03-27, 11:02 PM
Nope, wizards are Bad Game Design.

Nope, Druids are Bad Game Design. Wizards are just awesome.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-27, 11:12 PM
Nope, Druids are Bad Game Design. Wizards are just awesome.Wizards have a power level of 140%, 70%, or 0%. Fighters have a power level of 70%. Druids are a steady 120% or 90%. That is bad game design.
For the curious, wizards are either batman, blaster, or inside AMF. Druids are either outside or inside AMF. Fighters are fighters.

CasESenSITItiVE
2008-03-27, 11:12 PM
Nope, wizards are Bad Game Design.

actually, the correct answer is secret answer c, both are bad game design. winning every situation is not good game design, but you don't fix it by still allowing him to auto-win most of the time and auto lose for the rest

GoodbyeSoberDay
2008-03-28, 02:35 AM
I dunno, I always thought using Disjunction specifically to get rid of AMFs didn't violate the MAD agreement. It's sort of like nuclear power plants. Yeah, you're using Uranium (or Plutonium, or whatever they use), but not in the really, really bad way.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-03-28, 02:53 AM
Wizards have a power level of 140%, 70%, or 0%. Fighters have a power level of 70%. Druids are a steady 120% or 90%. That is bad game design.
For the curious, wizards are either batman, blaster, or inside AMF. Druids are either outside or inside AMF. Fighters are fighters.

1) Fighter in an AMF probably beats Druid, since they lose access to spells and Wildshape.

EDIT: Nevermind, Animal Companion, totally slipped my mind. But honestly, fighters do have two settings, and you can build one that beats the Druids companion and the Druid in an AMF without much trouble, just not in core.

2) As has been mentioned in this thread, Wizards in AMF /= 0.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-28, 02:58 AM
1) Fighter in an AMF probably beats Druid, since they lose access to spells and Wildshape.Animal Companion. As long as it gets the flank, it probably beats the Fighter.
2) As has been mentioned in this thread, Wizards in AMF /= 0.If for some reason you are stuck in there, you are slightly better than a commoner with a good will save. If your DM is a RAWtard, then yes, conjurations can save your bum, but generally it's a complete gimping of the class which /= balance. All-powerful most of the time and useless the rest of the time is definitely not good game design.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-03-28, 04:12 AM
Animal Companion. As long as it gets the flank, it probably beats the Fighter.

I caught that while you were posting, but as I said, Fighter can still beat AC with any kind of optimized feat chain.


If for some reason you are stuck in there, you are slightly better than a commoner with a good will save. If your DM is a RAWtard, then yes, conjurations can save your bum, but generally it's a complete gimping of the class which /= balance. All-powerful most of the time and useless the rest of the time is definitely not good game design.

It's not RAWtard. 1) AMF specifically says it doesn't effect a certain type of spell, why is it stupid to actually follow the very clear rules presented when they make sense?

2) AMF is not some super Godly negate everything field, it just has certain effects on spells. Those effects as written are in line with a 6th level spell, they way you wish it was isn't.

3) Prismatic Wall and Wall of Force are specifically mentioned as being immune. What on Earth is so RAWtarded about using spells that specifically aren't affected? Is it RAWtarded for Dispel Magic to not remove Walls of Force?

4) There is very little to stop a Wizard from walking outside an AMF and flying into the air, or just be flying to begin with. The ease of escape from AMF makes it's threat considerably less. Also the difficulty in forcing a Wizard into it.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-28, 04:31 AM
The question is whether or not you can cast them in an anti-magic field. Yes, casting orbs from outside is fine, but casting Prismatic Sphere from inside seems more like an oversight than an actual balancing factor, especially since you can't use a SLA to emulate it.

Also, can the fighter beat the AC + a pissed off druid? A druid in an AMF essentially has a fighter as a cohort. .75 BaB and good HP is nothing to sneeze at, especially when you're also facing an encounter of near your CR without any magic gear.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-03-28, 04:51 AM
The question is whether or not you can cast them in an anti-magic field. Yes, casting orbs from outside is fine, but casting Prismatic Sphere from inside seems more like an oversight than an actual balancing factor, especially since you can't use a SLA to emulate it.

I feel like being able to use a higher level spell of a very specific kind that is explicitly not suppressed by AMF is not an oversight, but intention. There is no reason that a 6th level spell should really be that much superior to 7-9th level spells.

And yes, you can cast it in an AMF. You can also cast any spell with a duration, like invisibility, and it will take effect as soon as you leave the AMF.

So you can cast spells in an AMF, the spell specifically is exempted from suppression, and the the spell makes AMF not a Disjunction>AMF>Everything else in the game. If it was going to be like that they wouldn't have made it a spell that can be cast at level 11.


Also, can the fighter beat the AC + a pissed off druid? A druid in an AMF essentially has a fighter as a cohort. .75 BaB and good HP is nothing to sneeze at, especially when you're also facing an encounter of near your CR without any magic gear.

Yes, a Fighter can easily beat a Druid + AC in an AMF.

1) A druid usually dumps fiscal stats, even if he didn't he's still not much to speak off in an AMF, he's a Expert with slightly more HP who wasted all his feats on stuff that doesn't work.

2) For all the talk of AC>Fighter it isn't true. In Core it can be, at higher levels because there are no good feats. It's also true at level 1, because most things are up to the dice and the AC riding Dog has 2 HD. But involving splatbooks, the Fighter is much much better.

Chain tripper with Combat Reflexes, Robilar's Gambit, Karmic Strike (and of course plenty besides)? Charge build? Trip focused even could probably get enough bonuses to have a good chance on the Bear, and an auto success on the Druid.

There are lots of good builds you can make with a Fighter. And at higher levels, you basically add two of them together Tripper + AoO monkey, Charger + AoO monkey. Bullrush Build + Knockdown build. And this starts to happen about level 12. Yeha, my money's on the Fighter over the AC everytime.

Aquillion
2008-03-28, 04:58 AM
Where are people getting the idea that an AMF prevents you from attempting to use SLAs, or that it negates all SU abilities? The spell description, in fact, specifically says otherwise:


Elementals, corporeal undead, and outsiders are likewise unaffected unless summoned. These creatures’ spell-like or supernatural abilities, however, may be temporarily nullified by the field.Emphasis mine. If it says that they 'may' be temporarily nullified, that means that there are situations when they won't be -- like, say, if it's an SLA for a spell that an AMF specifically can't nullify. Not that that's a help to wizards, of course, but I thought I'd point it out.

The section on abilities is the same way: In its bulleted list of how abilities are affected by an AMF, it says

No supernatural ability, spell-like ability, or spell works in an area of antimagic (but extraordinary abilities still work).
...but then, further down, the final bullet notes:

Wall of force, prismatic wall, and prismatic sphere are not affected by antimagic. Break enchantment, dispel magic, and greater dispel magic spells do not dispel antimagic. Mage’s disjunction has a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined. Since those are 'spells' and it specifically says that they are not affected by antimagic (despite the first bulletpoint saying no spell works in an AMF), the only way to interpret that final bulletpoint is as an exception to the general rule given earlier.

Oh. An AMF also usually fails to stop epic magic, though by the time you've got that it hardly matters anymore.

Talic
2008-03-28, 05:08 AM
I feel like being able to use a higher level spell of a very specific kind that is explicitly not suppressed by AMF is not an oversight, but intention. There is no reason that a 6th level spell should really be that much superior to 7-9th level spells.

And yes, you can cast it in an AMF. You can also cast any spell with a duration, like invisibility, and it will take effect as soon as you leave the AMF.

So you can cast spells in an AMF, the spell specifically is exempted from suppression, and the the spell makes AMF not a Disjunction>AMF>Everything else in the game. If it was going to be like that they wouldn't have made it a spell that can be cast at level 11.



Yes, a Fighter can easily beat a Druid + AC in an AMF.

1) A druid usually dumps fiscal stats, even if he didn't he's still not much to speak off in an AMF, he's a Expert with slightly more HP who wasted all his feats on stuff that doesn't work.

2) For all the talk of AC>Fighter it isn't true. In Core it can be, at higher levels because there are no good feats. It's also true at level 1, because most things are up to the dice and the AC riding Dog has 2 HD. But involving splatbooks, the Fighter is much much better.

Chain tripper with Combat Reflexes, Robilar's Gambit, Karmic Strike (and of course plenty besides)? Charge build? Trip focused even could probably get enough bonuses to have a good chance on the Bear, and an auto success on the Druid.

There are lots of good builds you can make with a Fighter. And at higher levels, you basically add two of them together Tripper + AoO monkey, Charger + AoO monkey. Bullrush Build + Knockdown build. And this starts to happen about level 12. Yeha, my money's on the Fighter over the AC everytime.

1 minor problem. Druids that are already wildshaped don't exactly shift back, typically.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-03-28, 05:12 AM
1 minor problem. Druids that are already wildshaped don't exactly shift back, typically.

Yes they do, because Supernatural abilities don't work in an AMF, and Wildshape is not an Instantaneous Conjuration spell.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-28, 05:21 AM
Would it have been so hard for them to just say "It's a targeted Dispel Magic check against every effect inside or brought inside"? I mean, this seems like it was intentionally written to be as confusing as possible.

Aquillion
2008-03-28, 05:27 AM
Would it have been so hard for them to just say "It's a targeted Dispel Magic check against every effect inside or brought inside"? I mean, this seems like it was intentionally written to be as confusing as possible.My question is why they made the Prismatic Wall/Sphere and Wall of Force exceptions in the first place. Maybe for Prismatic Wall they wanted to force people to use the 'intended' methods to destroy the wall... plus, letting AMF beat those would let a lower-level spell beat a higher-level spell (although AMF beats lots of other higher-level spells)... but why Wall of Force? It's lower-level than AMF, and it can already be beaten by a 6th-level disintegrate, so there's no reason why a 6th-level AMF shouldn't be able to beat it, too.

Yet it can't. Weird.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-03-28, 05:42 AM
Would it have been so hard for them to just say "It's a targeted Dispel Magic check against every effect inside or brought inside"? I mean, this seems like it was intentionally written to be as confusing as possible.

Well that would be an incredibly different spell (called Otiluke's Dispelling Screen in fact.)

1) Dispel Magic has a chance of failure.
2) Dispel Magic does not effect SLAs or Supernatural abilities.
3) Dispel Magic removes buffs permanently, something AMF is designed specifically not to do.
4) Dispel Magic on the items? Would that mean 1d4 rounds after you leave the field you start getting magic items back instead of instantly?
5) You would need to specify that, the check is immediate upon the effect being generated, otherwise every instantaneous attack spell would still work fine.

In other words, that would be nothing like AMF, pretty confusing on it's own, and a bout a hundred times more work (all the dice rolling, duration of suppression effects, crossing off half you buffs, ect.)

Roderick_BR
2008-03-28, 07:07 AM
Quite honestly, its pretty much the only thing that handycaps a wizard completely. I wouldn't complain too much about it, since a wizard can pretty much nuke the entire world on a whim the rest of the time....
So, the option is to either make one part of the group completely suck, or the other half of the group completely suck. Way to go, WotC. I mean, in older editions, AMF were a lot more rare, and casters had others options. Now that magic trumps all, removing it pretty much screws casters.

Only ToBers can work properly in AMFs, I guess, since they have extraordinary abilities that allow them to replace some of their lost magic itens.

Burley
2008-03-28, 10:28 AM
Um...K.
Well, firstly: This question is by NO means powergaming. I wrote up my character concept WAY before character creation, and I've chosen all my spells based on my concept. My character is working towards Effigy Master, and so my spellbook is filled with spells that focus on clockwork junk and building stuff, like Repair spells and grease and mend. I'm so circumstantially utilitarian my wizarding side is a free familiar...and that's about it. :smalltongue: I just don't want to become completely useless...ever. I'm a gnome with a strength penatly. I can't do anything physical, and my Effigies would be useless in there as well.

Also, some number of posts back somebody said teleporting out of an AMF. Doesn't work. From the SRD:

An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it.
Emphasis mine.
So, you can use (Duration: Instantaneous) Conjuration outside the field and aim it into the field. So, your orb spells still work, if you cast outside and throw it in. But, you can't teleport yourself out of an AMF.

Frosty
2008-03-28, 10:32 AM
Well yeah. Orb spells have *always* worked into an AMF. It's just one (more) reason why people ban evocation and specialize in Conjuration. No SR, laughs at AMF, No save damage that may do a secondary effect? Hell yes.

Indon
2008-03-28, 11:45 AM
*rogue cries*

*Monk walks in and out of the field*
Wizard: What are you doing?
Monk: Ah, there we go!
Wizard: What?
Monk: I'm immune. But only sometimes, so I had to walk in and out a few times.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-03-28, 12:01 PM
*Monk walks in and out of the field*
Wizard: What are you doing?
Monk: Ah, there we go!
Wizard: What?
Monk: I'm immune. But only sometimes, so I had to walk in and out a few times.

1) The SR clause only applies to Summoned Creatures, do you go around summoning Monks? Otherwise every Dragon would AMF themselves, miserably fail on their CL check (CL of CR 12 Dragon=8, Spell Resistance 2X) and be immune to their own field.
2) For any spell or ability to which SR applies, that SR is rolled once, and that result is used for the duration of the spell.

Aquillion
2008-03-28, 12:23 PM
Also, some number of posts back somebody said teleporting out of an AMF. Doesn't work. From the SRD:


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

Emphasis mine.
So, you can use (Duration: Instantaneous) Conjuration outside the field and aim it into the field. So, your orb spells still work, if you cast outside and throw it in. But, you can't teleport yourself out of an AMF.The problem is that that sentence is clearly contradicted by special cases listed further down. It clearly says that:


(The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)
If you ask me, using instantaneous conjurations in an AMF is pretty clearly intended to be barred by the bit after "because...", which makes the intention very clear. But nonetheless, it doesn't say "when cast or brought into the area", as you'd expect; it simply says their effects are not affected.

But anyway, the important part: No matter how you interpret it, it very obviously contradicts at least parts of the initial broad-overview paragraph (instant conjurations cast or brought into an AMF are very clearly not suppressed; there's no dispute about that.) The problem is that nowhere does it make any distinction between those two cases and the 'used within' case -- they're all part of the same 'suppressed' paragraph, and hence it's not a totally absurd reading to say that when you instantaneous conjurations inside an AMF, it reacts by trying to suppress them (as it's supposed to), but the exception listed further down means that it fails.

...and there's another exception, too, more obvious:
Two or more antimagic fields sharing any of the same space have no effect on each other.A spell that can be 'brought into' an AMF without being affected.


Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions). Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this.Spells and magical affects that can be brought into, used within, or cast into, and are clearly never affected. (The logical thing to suspect is that what they meant was for pre-existing prismatic spheres/walls and walls of force to not be affected... but it doesn't say that, anywhere. It just says they're not affected.)

Indon
2008-03-28, 12:39 PM
1) The SR clause only applies to Summoned Creatures, do you go around summoning Monks?

Well, actually, the SR clause only applies to summoned creatures to keep from being winked out. It doesn't actually apply to any of their abilities.


If you cast antimagic field in an area occupied by a summoned creature that has spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against the creature’s spell resistance to make it wink out...

...Elementals, corporeal undead, and outsiders are likewise unaffected unless summoned. These creatures’ spell-like or supernatural abilities, however, may be temporarily nullified by the field.

I was making a joke.

BabyPukeAttack
2008-03-28, 02:16 PM
there is also a lvl 7 spell that casts as a instant, and allows the magic user to cast magic up to 4th level, even under dead magic black magic and shadow magic zones.

it just makes a a small dome of weave magic around the user so he can some magic ill get the name of the spell and reference book in a sec, i gotta check the book cases.

Burley
2008-03-28, 02:37 PM
Okay. This is where it's all befuddled, then? Check the SRD here (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/magicSchools.html). Read the bit about conjuration, namely the bit about the "creation" subschool. The orb spells are instantanious creation spells. That means: Magic makes them, but does not hold them together. You cast Orb of Acid and you "instantly" have a ball of acid to throw. The orb is not magical, so, not only does it go into the AMF (from the outside on the AMF) just fine, but it also ignores Spell Resistance. It's not being affected by a spell, simply the results of the spell.
You can't cast the spell in the AMF, but Conjuration (Creation) with the Instantaneous duration can he hurled into AMF and at SR goons and still do what you want them to do.
This also means that things Called instead of Summoned aren't affected by AMFs either. They aren't the subject of magic anymore. That means that, if you use Gate outside the AMF, whatever you gated can run into that AMF and beat the tar out of the bloody Beholder for you. (Same is true for the Planar Ally spells.)

It is like using "soften earth and stone" (or whatever it's called) on the ceiling above an AMF or something with SR. The rocks falling from the ceiling aren't magical, but their falling is the result of magic.

Tokiko Mima
2008-03-28, 02:37 PM
Well, actually, the SR clause only applies to summoned creatures to keep from being winked out. It doesn't actually apply to any of their abilities.

Well, what you have to realize that if an AMF caster fails an SR check for a spell that allows SR then that creature is exempted from the effect of the spell; namely Antimagic Field. It specifically states in the section on Spell Resistance that if a caster fails their SR check the spell 'doesn't affect the creature.' So you treat the AMF area like the AMF wasn't there at all for that creature, like you would for any other area effect SR-able spell, like Spike Growth (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spikeGrowth.htm) for example.

Sightless
2008-03-28, 02:38 PM
Forgive me if this seems off topic.... but how are ToB classes/abilities affected by an anti magic field?

Reel On, Love
2008-03-28, 02:42 PM
Forgive me if this seems off topic.... but how are ToB classes/abilities affected by an anti magic field?

The (Su) maneuvers (like Strike of Rigtheous Vitality) are unusable. The rest are just fine.

Aquillion
2008-03-28, 08:26 PM
Well, what you have to realize that if an AMF caster fails an SR check for a spell that allows SR then that creature is exempted from the effect of the spell; namely Antimagic Field. It specifically states in the section on Spell Resistance that if a caster fails their SR check the spell 'doesn't affect the creature.' So you treat the AMF area like the AMF wasn't there at all for that creature, like you would for any other area effect SR-able spell, like Spike Growth (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spikeGrowth.htm)Anti-Magic field doesn't normally allow SR, though. It says "Resistance: See text", and the only time resistance is allowed in its text is for summoned creatures to roll to avoid winking out. No other SR rolls are ever made against it (otherwise, it would be SR: Yes), and the normal effect of SR rolls for summoned creatures is supersceded by the new effect defined in the spell description (as with the other spells that use "Resistance: See text" to let you know that they can be partially-resisted.)

Bitzeralisis
2008-03-28, 08:29 PM
Use an anti-anti-anti-magic field! *stupid grin*

Woland
2008-03-28, 08:50 PM
Yeah, AMF's are really poor game design. That's why I homebrew them completely out.

tyckspoon
2008-03-28, 10:29 PM
You can't cast the spell in the AMF, but Conjuration (Creation) with the Instantaneous duration can he hurled into AMF and at SR goons and still do what you want them to do.


Why can't you cast it? This is the bit where people seem to diverge from what the text actually says and are operating on how they think something called an anti-magic field should work. What part of the text states that your attempt to cast itself is prevented? Keep in mind that there already is game language for that kind of activity- a spell that is disrupted or prevented during the act of casting is counterspelled or lost due to concentration-breaking activity.. and AMF does not use that language.

Jayabalard
2008-03-28, 11:15 PM
wouldn't you need to have an anti anti-magic field field (a field that counter acts an anti-magic field)

Aquillion
2008-03-29, 05:02 AM
wouldn't you need to have an anti anti-magic field field (a field that counter acts an anti-magic field)
Hmm. Actually, without the second 'field', it's actually more powerful. Just going by the name, an anti-anti-magic field would not only prevent anti-magic fields; it would pervent anti-magic effects of all sorts from operating. In other words, it would negate dispel attempts, prevent Disjunction (assuming the Disjunction doesn't beat the anti-anti magic field, which it would probably still have a chance of doing), suppress plain old anti-magic fields, suppress spell resistance and spell immunity, cause counterspelling attempts to fail, and so on.