PDA

View Full Version : Can I cast AMF as a ranged touch attack and chain it?



Frosty
2008-07-04, 04:30 PM
Ok, so let's say I've got a Master Specialist specializing in Abjuration. He's also got levels in Archmage and has the Arcane Reach ability. So something like Wizard 5/M.Spec 10/Archmage X.

Here is Master Specialist's capstone ability for Abjurers:

Major School Esoterica (Ex):
At 10th level, your knowledge of your
chosen school reaches its peak. You gain
an ability from those below based on
your chosen school; each one can be
used three times per day.

Abjuration: When casting an abjuration
spell that normally has a range of personal,
you can instead choose to cast it as a touch
spell that affects a single creature. When
casting an abjuration spell that is an
emanation centered on you, you can instead
choose to cast it as a touch spell that emanates
from the touched creature.

Ok, so you can cast Anti-magic field as a touch attack due to this. Arcane Reach says you can turn touch attacks into ranged touch attacks with a range of 30ft. Does that mean I can point at an enemy wizard, make a ranged touch attack, and now the enemy wizard has an AMF emanating from him? And if I use a metamagic rod of Chain, I can do this to MULTIPLE targets?

Jack Mann
2008-07-04, 04:40 PM
The problem is that anti-magic field doesn't have a range of personal. It has a range of 10 feet, centered on you.

It's still a good ability, but it won't let you send forth anti-magic fields of DOOM.

Sampi
2008-07-04, 04:46 PM
Ok, so let's say I've got a Master Specialist specializing in Abjuration. He's also got levels in Archmage and has the Arcane Reach ability. So something like Wizard 5/M.Spec 10/Archmage X.

Here is Master Specialist's capstone ability for Abjurers:

Major School Esoterica (Ex):
At 10th level, your knowledge of your
chosen school reaches its peak. You gain
an ability from those below based on
your chosen school; each one can be
used three times per day.

Abjuration: When casting an abjuration
spell that normally has a range of personal,
you can instead choose to cast it as a touch
spell that affects a single creature. When
casting an abjuration spell that is an
emanation centered on you, you can instead
choose to cast it as a touch spell that emanates
from the touched creature.

Ok, so you can cast Anti-magic field as a touch attack due to this. Arcane Reach says you can turn touch attacks into ranged touch attacks with a range of 30ft. Does that mean I can point at an enemy wizard, make a ranged touch attack, and now the enemy wizard has an AMF emanating from him? And if I use a metamagic rod of Chain, I can do this to MULTIPLE targets?

Relevant area bolded. AMF is an emanation centered on you, and therefore can be cast as a touch spell with the major school esoterica. With arcane reach, it could be cast upon a target 30 ft. away. No reason it couldn't be chained, even.

So I'd say yes. Send forth those anti-magic fields of DOOM

Frosty
2008-07-04, 04:51 PM
Theproblem is can I PREPARE my AMFs with the Chain metamagic? I know I can cast them as ranged touch attacks, but that's on the fly, and not part of the preparation. Does that mean I am restricted to using metamagic rods?

On another note, M Specialists get two caster level increases for spells of their chosen school. Does that mean if I cast Greater Dispel Magic my Dispel checks get +2 as well?

Collin152
2008-07-04, 04:54 PM
I think you are required to use the rods.

Unless its possible to prepare a spell with metamagic that doesn't effect it.
Like preparing a Maximised open/close just for giggles.

Sir_Elderberry
2008-07-04, 04:55 PM
I think you are required to use the rods.

Unless its possible to prepare a spell with metamagic that doesn't effect it.
Like preparing a Maximised open/close just for giggles.

Empowered Prestidigitation. Hah! Now I can flavor 1.5 pounds of food.

Sampi
2008-07-04, 04:58 PM
Theproblem is can I PREPARE my AMFs with the Chain metamagic? I know I can cast them as ranged touch attacks, but that's on the fly, and not part of the preparation. Does that mean I am restricted to using metamagic rods?

On another note, M Specialists get two caster level increases for spells of their chosen school. Does that mean if I cast Greater Dispel Magic my Dispel checks get +2 as well?

Chain spell only works on a spell that "specifies a single target and has a range greater than touch" so use the rod.

Oh, and sure on the GDM checks, but there's a cap of +20 on the CL check.

Collin152
2008-07-04, 05:00 PM
Empowered Prestidigitation. Hah! Now I can flavor 1.5 pounds of food.

Empower does not work that way.
Variable numeric effects only.

Frosty
2008-07-04, 05:07 PM
Chain spell only works on a spell that "specifies a single target and has a range greater than touch" so use the rod.

Oh, and sure on the GDM checks, but there's a cap of +20 on the CL check.

Thre's Reaving Dispel, which is max +25. Add in the +5 competence bonus from Minor esoteria, and I get a total of +27 on my dispel checks. Beautiful. Add in Elven Spell Lore for +29.

Sir_Elderberry
2008-07-04, 05:08 PM
Empower does not work that way.
Variable numeric effects only.

Dangit, Morbo. I guess you could quicken it, so you could make an an enemy dirty and, presumably, he'd become so disheartened that he'd flee the combat and you could spend the rest of your turn dealing with someone else. (Ideally, by casting more prestidigitation.)

mikeejimbo
2008-07-04, 05:13 PM
Oh what I would give for an item of infinite quickened prestidigitations!

JeminiZero
2008-07-04, 06:25 PM
I am kinda surprised that it doesn't permit any sort of saving throw to resist the field. Was it ever errata'ed?

Also, if you do get it, expect all divine casters to suddenly become Clerics of Mystra, and all Arcane casters to be gishes with a large set of EX abilities.

Jack Mann
2008-07-04, 06:37 PM
Relevant area bolded. AMF is an emanation centered on you, and therefore can be cast as a touch spell with the major school esoterica. With arcane reach, it could be cast upon a target 30 ft. away. No reason it couldn't be chained, even.

So I'd say yes. Send forth those anti-magic fields of DOOM

Huh. Missed that part. Let the doom commence then, by all means.

Collin152
2008-07-04, 06:42 PM
Course, then they got a shield agaisnt all a` your spells.

Chronos
2008-07-04, 06:51 PM
Course, then they got a shield agaisnt all a` your spells.Even aside from all the things like orbs, you can still disintegrate the floor they're standing on, or cause a cave-in above them, or throw things at them with Telekinesis, or buff your friends with ranged weapons, or put a wall of stone around them, or a bunch of other things that don't care about the AMF.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-07-04, 07:07 PM
Even aside from all the things like orbs, you can still disintegrate the floor they're standing on, or cause a cave-in above them, or throw things at them with Telekinesis, or buff your friends with ranged weapons, or put a wall of stone around them, or a bunch of other things that don't care about the AMF.

So for your efforts you remove their buffs, continuous magic items, but offer them a limited protection against your spells without preventing them from casting spells at you...

Jack_Simth
2008-07-04, 07:53 PM
So for your efforts you remove their buffs, continuous magic items, but offer them a limited protection against your spells without preventing them from casting spells at you...

For your efforts, they suddenly have negligible defenses against the Rogue and Fighter in the party, who aren't nearly so reliant on magic for disabling/damaging foes.

Chronicled
2008-07-04, 07:58 PM
So for your efforts you remove their buffs, continuous magic items, but offer them a limited protection against your spells without preventing them from casting spells at you...

For your efforts, their Headband of Intellect is no longer helpful. Depending on their starting Int, their highest spells might not be usable. Either way, lower DC and fewer slots.

KillianHawkeye
2008-07-04, 08:02 PM
So for your efforts you remove their buffs, continuous magic items, but offer them a limited protection against your spells without preventing them from casting spells at you...


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

Does that not prevent the casting of spells within the AMF???

Collin152
2008-07-04, 08:04 PM
No.
Well, not nesecarily.
If the effect is without the AMF, there is nothing sayign it cannot be cast from within it.

JeminiZero
2008-07-04, 08:20 PM
It says it suppresses all magical effects. It doesn't say that the magical effect must be subject to SR (i.e. it is not Magic Immunity). Which means that it may block out *any* magic effect including the Orb line.

Also a 10 foot emation goes downwards, so the ground he is directly standing on is protected by the AMF so you can't disintegrate it.

Collin152
2008-07-04, 08:39 PM
It says it suppresses all magical effects. It doesn't say that the magical effect must be subject to SR (i.e. it is not Magic Immunity). Which means that it may block out *any* magic effect including the Orb line.

Also a 10 foot emation goes downwards, so the ground he is directly standing on is protected by the AMF so you can't disintegrate it.

SR: Irrelevant.
The Orb spells are isntantaneous conjurations; not magical effects as soon as you cast them.

Frosty
2008-07-04, 08:59 PM
Just to clarify. Without being a cheater ofmystra, if I am standing i n an AMF, I can't cast ANY spells at all right?

And also, AMF does NOT block line of effect right? So I can still cast aspell at a mage who has a sculpted AMF on him right?

Collin152
2008-07-04, 09:06 PM
Just to clarify. Without being a cheater ofmystra, if I am standing i n an AMF, I can't cast ANY spells at all right?

And also, AMF does NOT block line of effect right? So I can still cast aspell at a mage who has a sculpted AMF on him right?

Strictly speaking, you can cast any spell inside the AMF, as long as the effect is outside of it.
Which it usually would be for attacking spells.

And no, it dos not, so yes, you can.

JeminiZero
2008-07-04, 09:07 PM
SR: Irrelevant.
The Orb spells are isntantaneous conjurations; not magical effects as soon as you cast them.


Although it is a conjuration, that does not mean it is NOT a magical effect. Other conjurations are also nulled:



Summoned creatures of any type and incorporeal undead wink out if they enter an antimagic field. They reappear in the same spot once the field goes away. Time spent winked out counts normally against the duration of the conjuration that is maintaining the creature.


So unless the Orb line specifically states that AMFs have no effect on it, they would be stopped by an AMF. (I say this because I don't know the descriptions for the Orb line).

Collin152
2008-07-04, 09:14 PM
Although it is a conjuration, that does not mean it is NOT a magical effect. Other conjurations are also nulled:



So unless the Orb line specifically states that AMFs have no effect on it, they would be stopped by an AMF. (I say this because I don't know the descriptions for the Orb line).

I repeat.
Instantaneous conjuration.

It's not a magic effect anymore.
Don't make me look up the rules for it, it's a widely aknowledged fact here.

They aren't stopped by AMF.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-07-04, 09:47 PM
I repeat.
Instantaneous conjuration.

It's not a magic effect anymore.
Don't make me look up the rules for it, it's a widely aknowledged fact here.

They aren't stopped by AMF.To define it better, it's like creating a ball of fire in your hand and then throwing it at someone. The only magic used is that needed to create it, after that it's just really deadly fire.

shadow_archmagi
2008-07-04, 10:18 PM
magic used is that needed to create it, after that it's just really deadly fire.

Yes, but it PREVENTS that creation. Just how were you planning on creating it without magic?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-07-04, 10:19 PM
Yes, but it PREVENTS that creation.Which is why you make sure to cast it from outside the AMF.

Collin152
2008-07-04, 10:23 PM
Yes, but it PREVENTS that creation. Just how were you planning on creating it without magic?

Was anyone arguing that you could cast these spells from within?

Talya
2008-07-04, 10:25 PM
Which is why you make sure to cast it from outside the AMF.

That's the point they are missing.

You can cast spells like the Orb line into an AMF from outside, but if you can't cast anything while inside an AMF.

Collin152
2008-07-04, 10:27 PM
you can't cast anything while inside an AMF.

Strictly speaking, untrue.
It's just generally housruled to function that way.

Frosty
2008-07-04, 10:42 PM
Strictly speaking, untrue.
It's just generally housruled to function that way.

It'd be retarded to work any other way. Do you houserule it that way?

Collin152
2008-07-04, 10:45 PM
It'd be retarded to work any other way. Do you houserule it that way?

That sounds like an insult. :smallmad:
And I don't actually use it in games, because of RAW, RAI, RAMS disputes like these, not to mention the fact that depending on interpretation it's either useless or overpowered.

Frosty
2008-07-04, 10:49 PM
That sounds like an insult. :smallmad:
And I don't actually use it in games, because of RAW, RAI, RAMS disputes like these, not to mention the fact that depending on interpretation it's either useless or overpowered.

There is no insult towards you. I feel that allowing casters to cast inside an AMF seems rather dumb. Of course, given my interpretation, it's useless unless you cast the spell on your familiar (I count it as range personal for that purpose I guess, and so do a lot of my DMs) or unless you go the M. specialist + Archmage route.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-07-05, 02:30 AM
I feel that allowing casters to cast inside an AMF seems rather dumb.

It depends on what the purpose of the spell is. Is it an anti-mage spell or a mage-buff?

WotC have made it clear with their Rules Compendium that is primarily a mage buff that protects you against a range of magical attacks while still allowing you to cast at your opponents from inside the field.

Whether this was a good idea may be an individual question, but after it was made clear that the AMF does not block line of effect the RAW is no longer up for debate.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-07-05, 02:35 AM
Jack_Smith and Chronicled,

It is situationally useful, but you are granting your opponent protection against magic, so you would have to think carefully before using it.

All in all, it does not seem like the most powerful 8th level de-buff.

Draz74
2008-07-05, 02:51 AM
WotC have made it clear with their Rules Compendium

... and from what I've heard, the Rules Compendium talks enough about the specifics of Antimagic areas, that I don't think anyone who hasn't read that book should really be getting into rules disputes about the effect.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-07-05, 02:59 AM
... and from what I've heard, the Rules Compendium talks enough about the specifics of Antimagic areas, that I don't think anyone who hasn't read that book should really be getting into rules disputes about the effect.

I do not think it is quite that bad. The main contribution of the RC was to alter the reasonable expectation that line of effect would be broken by an AMF.
That is really all you need to know from the RC to realize that the AMF does not t shut down a caster as long as the target is outside the area.

Talic
2008-07-05, 03:41 AM
The real question is, would a sudden maximized Greater Dispelling with a rod of empower dispel pretty much anything?

Though sorceror with Accelerate metamagic: Chain Spell, and Chain Spell, should be able to hit up the chain on the fly without a rod.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-07-05, 04:12 AM
The real question is, would a sudden maximized Greater Dispelling with a rod of empower dispel pretty much anything?

Why the Rod?
Empower does not affect dispel checks.

Tokiko Mima
2008-07-05, 04:35 AM
AMF is pretty much borked the moment you get to the part about instantaneous conjurations not being effected, then you realize that the catagory of instant conjurations includes all teleport spells. The fact that the description itself doesn't actually prevent casting, and that it's possible to make a summoned monster totally immune to your AMF via a successful SR check is just icing on the cake.

AMF needs houseruling to have a consistent effect that makes logical sense. Don't ever try to argue RAW when it comes to that spell, because it just goes around in circles endlessly. The way it's worded it has way too many holes to provide a defense against magic, or a debuff against the same.

Talic
2008-07-05, 05:17 AM
Why the Rod?
Empower does not affect dispel checks.

You sure that the dispel check that's part of the spell isn't a "variable numeric effect"?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-07-05, 07:22 AM
You sure that the dispel check that's part of the spell isn't a "variable numeric effect"?

Yes, the roll may be a variable numeric, but it is not the effect of the spell.
It is something you use to adjudicate the effect of the spell, but not an effect in itself.

IIRC, this was also covered by the FAQ.

Chronos
2008-07-05, 11:30 AM
Of course, given my interpretation, it's useless unless you cast the spell on your familiar (I count it as range personal for that purpose I guess, and so do a lot of my DMs) or unless you go the M. specialist + Archmage route.No, the real use for an antimagic field (under your interpretation) is for a rogue to UMD it off of a scroll.

You know what's ironic about the Rules Compendium info on AMF? I'm pretty sure that the reason they made that change (about blocking line of effect) was to shut down the tactic of the archmage anti-magic donut. But the effect is that now you can get the benefits of an antimagic donut without even needing the hole in the middle.

Frosty
2008-07-05, 12:24 PM
Well , I just heard from the DM. The DM at the game I'm applying for has just ruled that NO MAGIC can be cast while inside an AMF. So, I will give the enemy a limited protection against my spells. In return, he ha so buffs, no magic items, and no spellcasting. Seems like a pretty good deal to me for one level 6 slot.

Arbitrarity
2008-07-05, 01:08 PM
You know what's ironic about the Rules Compendium info on AMF? I'm pretty sure that the reason they made that change (about blocking line of effect) was to shut down the tactic of the archmage anti-magic donut. But the effect is that now you can get the benefits of an antimagic donut without even needing the hole in the middle.

Except with all buffs shut down, which is mediocre. Losing my headband's effects means I lose a lot of spells by casting AMF, my DC's go down, etc.

Draz74
2008-07-05, 06:40 PM
No, the real use for an antimagic field (under your interpretation) is for a rogue to UMD it off of a scroll.

No, the real use is for a Dragon to take it as one of his Sorcerer Spells Known once he has high enough Hit Dice. Then laugh at almost any non-Tome-of-Battle adventurers that try to mess with him.

Chronos
2008-07-05, 10:33 PM
Wouldn't a dragon need to widen it, lest most of him be protruding out of it, though?

Jack_Simth
2008-07-05, 10:44 PM
No, the real use is for a Dragon to take it as one of his Sorcerer Spells Known once he has high enough Hit Dice. Then laugh at almost any non-Tome-of-Battle adventurers that try to mess with him.

Not really.

1) By the time a dragon can get 6th level spells to pull that off (Sorcerer caster level 12) they're at least Huge, usual Gargantuan - which means they *maybe* have a thin film of antimagic around them with the standard 10-foot radius.
2) While a Dragon with 9th level spells can Widen it to fully self-encompass, this just means that they've got maybe a five or ten foot range of antimagic around them. Anything not actually in the antimagic field isn't particularly affected - so while those +1 Dragon Bane arrows are useless, the +10 Strength Composite Bow on the Ranger with Haste, Greater Heroism, and a potion of Enlarge Person means you're going to be hurting. Sure, you can go up to him and grapple.... but then you're not getting his party mates. You can go up to him and melee... but he'll just walk out of range and Manyshot (or was the Multishot?) you and heal up. Meanwhile, you can't heal up while inside your AMF.

Aquillion
2008-07-06, 01:30 AM
Haven't we been over this already? There are a handful of specifically-enumerated spells that, per RAW, you can cast while standing in an AMF, although few DMs are likely to actually let you get away with it. This does not include instantaneous conjurations (which fall under a different clause, letting you cast them outside and then have their non-magical effects enter the AMF.)

The relevent texts are as follows:

An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines.

An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spellís duration.
Fair enough so far. You try to cast a spell while you are standing inside an AMF, and it's immediately suppressed (this includes instantaneous conjurations; the AMF doesn't care if you're planning on tossing it out or intend to conjure the actual object outside.)

But! There are exceptions to this general rule further down:

Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions).Since they are unaffected, when an anti-magic field tries to suppress them (whether it's in the moment of casting or afterwards), it fails.

This is repeated in the general description of Anti-Magic fields:

No supernatural ability, spell-like ability, or spell works in an area of antimagic (but extraordinary abilities still work).
But a specific clause later in the same list trumps the general rule:

Wall of force, prismatic wall, and prismatic sphere are not affected by antimagic.Note the italics, indicating that these spells specifically are what is not affected; ergo, you can cast them while standing in an anti-magic field.

Curiously, the wording on Prismatic Sphere states that an anti-magic field "fails to penetrate it", which imples that if you stand in a prismatic sphere and cast an AMF, the emination won't get out... conversely, if you drop prismatic wall/sphere between you and the source of an AMF, blocking it off completely, the AMF will no longer eminate to the protected area.

Talic
2008-07-06, 04:12 AM
I do believe that dragons have optional claw weapons, wing weapons, with Lords of madness, you can add mouthpick weapons, and with Serpent kingdoms, you get prehensile tail for a tail weapon.

Add in 21 HD, perfect multiweapon fighting, an AMF, and 1 level of lion totem barbarian, and you have a dragon that can make, on a charge, Assuming he was exceptionally dextrous to begin with, and had inherent bonuses from wishes...

4 attacks with claw1 weapon
4 attacks with claw2 weapon
4 attacks with mouth weapon
4 attacks with wing1 weapon
4 attacks with wing2 weapon
4 attacks with tail weapon

24 attacks on a charge, with power attack, in an AMF. Take the additional -2 to use non light weapons, and go all "BLADES OF FURY" with MW adamantine weapons. Start with sunders in the AMF (that +5 greatsword? Oh, masterwork... Smash!) move to eating group alive. If in trouble, fly out.

Frosty
2008-07-06, 12:12 PM
1) Drgons aren't that dextrous
2) Natural weapons don't get iterative attacks

Chronos
2008-07-06, 12:56 PM
I think that's why he gave the dragon Perfect Multiweapon Fighting (epic feat, but it's not hard for dragons to qualify for those). But since we're looking at natural weapons here, not manufactured, the dragon would actually need Perfect Multiattack, which so far as I know, doesn't exist.