[3.5] Okay, explain how you cast spells inside an Antimagic Field

[KillianHawkeye]

Seriously, I don't get it. I know I seem to be in the minority, but every time I read the spell or the page about it in the Rules Compendium, I come up with the same conclusion. So I need someone to break it down for me.

Here are my problems with it:

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 spell’s duration.

So, according to this, spell effects quite clearly do not take place in the field. I'm not arguing about that. But the two sentences I bolded say (to me, at least) that casting a spell from inside the field is likewise impossible. (This is where my interpretation seems to differ.)

Spells and magic items do not function. It explicitly says that any spell or magical effect used within the field is suppressed, and any instantaneous spell that gets suppressed is completely negated. Now, is it just me, or isn't the act of "using" a spell called casting? So isn't ANY spell cast inside the field suppressed? Backing that up are such quotes from the Rules Compendium as:

No supernatural ability or spell-like ability works in an antimagic area.

and

Spells don't function in an antimagic area... ... If a spell's point of origin is inside an antimagic area, that spell is entirely suppressed.

Now, in 3.x, all abilities are divided up into the categories of extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like. The text seems to say quite clearly that only extraordinary abilities can be used inside an antimagic field. I know that spellcasting isn't explicitly categorized using this system (probably because the PHB was the first book), but are you trying to tell me that it's an extraordinary ability rather than a supernatural, or say, a spell-like one?

In the Q&A thread, Silvanos pointed out that antimagic field doesn't block line of effect. However, I don't see how that alone allows a wizard to circumvent the parts of the text that seem to say you can't cast spells inside it. Rather, this seems to be all about spells that are cast from outside the field against a target on the opposite side. For instance, a wizard standing next to an antimagic field would be able to cast a disintegrate or a lightning bolt or a charm person at a target on the far side of the field, because those spells would only be suppressed within the field. In effect, the beam or bolt would disappear and reappear on the other side. I understand all that. But based on the way I am reading this, I know the target would be unaffected by any of those if he was inside the field, and I believe the caster would be unable to even cast any of them if he was inside the field.

So please explain to me, with examples of what part I am failing to see or understand, how the wizard can stand in the middle of the field and still cast spells out of it. I really want to be able to understand this, since it seems that quite a few people around here support this idea. Maybe at the end I will still disagree, but if that is the case I want to know that my way really is a house rule, and why. Thanks!

[jcsw]

You don't cast spells within it. Antimagic fields have rather bad AoEs so

Move] Out of the field
Standard] Orb.

[KillianHawkeye]

If you're the one who cast the antimagic field, it follows you wherever you go.

But there are people here who insist you can stand inside it and still cast spells against external foes. That's what I want to know about.

[imperialspectre]

Extraordinary Spell Aim (Complete Adventurer) lets you create a gap in the AMF, as do Mastery of Shaping (Archmage special, SRD) and Sculpt Spell metamagic (Complete Arcane).

The Initiate of Mystra feat (PGtF) lets you cast in an AMF on a successful opposed CL check.

[Neithan]

If you're the one who cast the antimagic field, it follows you wherever you go.

But there are people here who insist you can stand inside it and still cast spells against external foes. That's what I want to know about.

The discription doesn't clearly say anything about that. But I think it's pretty obvious, that it's not meant to work like that and it also doesn't explicitly say that you can.
So I'd go with bad wording of the spells description and add for myself "and no magical effects can originate from within it.

It DOES work with Globe of Invulnerability, so I'm pretty sure that if it was intended to be possible, they would have said "this spell works like a globe of invulnerability, but without a limit to spell level and also on non-spell effects." But they didn't, so I'd say they didn't meant it to be like that.

[KillianHawkeye]

Extraordinary Spell Aim (Complete Adventurer) lets you create a gap in the AMF, as do Mastery of Shaping (Archmage special, SRD) and Sculpt Spell metamagic (Complete Arcane).

Those are all good ways to get around an antimagic field if my interpretation of how it works is the right one. If not, then those aren't even necessary.

The Initiate of Mystra feat (PGtF) lets you cast in an AMF on a successful opposed CL check.

Interesting....

Is Player's Guide to Faerun a 3.5 book? (I don't really know much about Forgotten Realms.) If so, that would seem to be another point in support of my interpretation.

The discription doesn't clearly say anything about that. But I think it's pretty obvious, that it's not meant to work like that and it also doesn't explicitly say that you can.
So I'd go with bad wording of the spells description and add for myself "and no magical effects can originate from within it.

Yes, but I am trying to find out if it is necessary to make that change by the RAW, or if already exists like that albeit unclearly?

It DOES work with Globe of Invulnerability, so I'm pretty sure that if it was intended to be possible, they would have said "this spell works like a globe of invulnerability, but without a limit to spell level and also on non-spell effects." But they didn't, so I'd say they didn't meant it to be like that.

Interesting point about the globe of invulnerability. I hadn't thought to compare the two spells. The effects are very similar. The most notable differences being the spells' effects on already existing magical effects (and summoned creatures), incorporeal creatures, maximum level of affected magical effects, and the fact that one follows you and the other is immobile. And of course, globe of invulnerability specifically allows the casting of spells out of or through it, which antimagic field does not.

Seems like yet another point in favor of my interpretation. If I am really wrong about this, then I sure am going to be more confused than ever when somebody comes and disproves all of this! But now I am sure that the RAI is that you can't cast spells inside the field. If you can by RAW, then I will have to houserule it away. But I still want to hear from the other side of this issue. Anyone?

[Heliomance]

No, you're right. Without taking one of the above measures, you can't cast inside an AMF.

[Tokiko Mima]

If I had to argue against it, I would say from a balance point of view should a 6th level spell completely protect you from almost all 7th, 8th, 9th and Epic level spells, along with spell-like abilities and supernatural effects for 2+ hours at a time? That seems a bit overpowered to me, even with the downsides it obviously has.

The reason we can argue this is because the RAW never clearly states that the act of spellcasting is itself magical. In fact, by making it an action like any others, it strongly hints that it isn't. Does AMF prevent drinking a potion? It inhibits the potion from taking effect certainly, but it doesn't stop the potions spell from being activated if it has a duration.

If you want a different perspective, then suppose you are a 20th level wizard inside a 13th level wizard's AMF. You have Prismatic Sphere memorized, a spell which is specifically immune to AMF. Can you cast that spell, or does the immunity to AMF apply only after the spell is cast? What about Disjunction, (a 9th level spell that breaks apart even very strong magics that AMF cannot affect) why can't you cast it if one of it's functions is to destroy AMFs?

Anyway, AMF is a bad spell. It's very poorly worded and designed in RAW, with a crazy amount of silly loopholes for a single spell that's way too good at what it does anyway. As a 9th level spell, maybe, or with the stipulation that it has no effect on magic of a higher level than itself. I suspect the whole reason this spell even exists is to make dumb fighters think that they could kill a full-caster if only they got one into an AMF, and that somehow makes their classes "equal."

[Tehnar]

Point I make with my PCs: If you take mastery of shaping (or something to that effect), and use it so you can 'cast' in a antimagic field, you exclude your square from the antimagic fields effects. However you have excluded the square where the antimagic field originates thus causing the spell to fail.

[Heliomance]

There's no reason that would cause the spell to fail. That's a houserule, not an interpretation of the rules.

[Dervag]

It's not entirely unreasonable to my way of thinking, but since there are plenty of other spells that can be cast in a spherical shell around the origin without failing, I don't think I'd houserule that way.

[Eldariel]

It's worth noting that leaving the hole in AMF removes much of the spell's protective qualities (it does not block Line of Effect so single target spells can hit you through the AMF), so it's in no way overpowering to allow.

Initiate of Mystra on the other hand...Persist AMF, Persist all the buffs in the world, go into battle immune to almost all spells (opponent needs Disjunction and some percentile luck or SR: No-spells you should have little trouble dealing with as a Cleric) and just as strong as you'd be outside the AMF.

[Tehnar]

From the SRD:

An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres.

An antimagic field is a emanation. Mastery of shaping creates 5ft cubes withing the spell area that are not affected by the spell. While it may or may not be RAW, it seems logical to me, that a emanation cannot emanate from a place where the spell does not function.

The only spell I can think of that creates a spherical shell around a origin point without failing, is prismatic sphere. However, prismatic sphere is not a emanation, it just says a 10 ft radius sphere centered on you.

[caith]

I think the wording is VERY precise, and very clear. They very carefully chose the words FUNCTIONING and SUPRESSING rather than being more open and saying that no spell can be cast from inside and no spell can be cast into. They also note that "Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration.". What this means is that any spell can be cast within or without of the field into or out of the field, however it will have NO EFFECT inside the field.

For example...a wizard casts scorching ray on a target outside of the field. The ray's firey magical effect will be supressed against any target inside the field, however it will pass through the field and proceed to strike the target outside of the field.

Another example...the wizard casts Mass Bear's Endurance with himself as the center, and a few allies outside of the field. The spell will be cast on him for it's duration, however he will not receive the effects until he leaves the area of the field, but his allies WILL receive it's benefit.

The spell merely supresses the magical effects, however it has no ability to dispel or end any magical effect. Magical items are not destroyed however their effects cannot be used as their actual existence is considered a magical effect and so they become mundane. There are a few spells that could be confusing, such as fireball...if it detonates inside the magic field does the fire then proceed to extend outside of the antimagic field and strike targets? I would likely say yes but it's probly a DM call even though the wording is pretty clear.

[Heliomance]

You can cast through an antimagic field no problem. If you're in an antimagic field then you can't use magic. All magic is surpressed, including your ability to cast spells. Any other interpretation is stupid, as the only reason it's a 6th level spell not a 12th level spell is the heavy heavy downsides it carries.

[RTGoodman]

I think the wording is VERY precise, and very clear. They very carefully chose the words FUNCTIONING and SUPRESSING rather than being more open and saying that no spell can be cast from inside and no spell can be cast into. They also note that "Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration.". What this means is that any spell can be cast within or without of the field into or out of the field, however it will have NO EFFECT inside the field.

For example...a wizard casts scorching ray on a target outside of the field. The ray's firey magical effect will be supressed against any target inside the field, however it will pass through the field and proceed to strike the target outside of the field.

Another example...the wizard casts Mass Bear's Endurance with himself as the center, and a few allies outside of the field. The spell will be cast on him for it's duration, however he will not receive the effects until he leaves the area of the field, but his allies WILL receive it's benefit.

The spell merely supresses the magical effects, however it has no ability to dispel or end any magical effect. Magical items are not destroyed however their effects cannot be used as their actual existence is considered a magical effect and so they become mundane. There are a few spells that could be confusing, such as fireball...if it detonates inside the magic field does the fire then proceed to extend outside of the antimagic field and strike targets? I would likely say yes but it's probly a DM call even though the wording is pretty clear.

I've never played in a game high enough level to include AMF, but I think this explanation is the one that makes the most sense to me in relation to the actual RAW text.

[ericgrau]

Spells cannot originate inside the AMF. The SRD says "it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines." However, epic spells have a good chance of not being affected by an anti magic field.

Spells cast from outside the AMF are merely suppressed as they pass through it, not eliminated. So you can cast a ray spell through it and hit a target on the other side if he's outside the AMF. A fireball that intersects with an AMF only has part of its area of effect suppressed. Unless its point of origin is suppressed, then the whole spell is suppressed.

[KillianHawkeye]

I think the wording is VERY precise, and very clear. They very carefully chose the words FUNCTIONING and SUPRESSING rather than being more open and saying that no spell can be cast from inside and no spell can be cast into. They also note that "Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration.". What this means is that any spell can be cast within or without of the field into or out of the field, however it will have NO EFFECT inside the field.

The problem is that it is not clear. At least, halfway. The term "suppressed" is fairly clearly defined by the spell's text. However, the term "function" is not. It is mostly the interpretation of this word that can tip the scales of this argument.

Also, "Time spend within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell's duration" only mean that a spell you already have on will continue to count down it's duration even while it is suppressed. It doesn't actually tell us anything about whether or not a spell can be cast inside the field.

For example...a wizard casts scorching ray on a target outside of the field. The ray's firey magical effect will be supressed against any target inside the field, however it will pass through the field and proceed to strike the target outside of the field.

Now this one I know doesn't work, because scorching ray is an instantaneous spell. As a spell originating within the antimagic field, it is entirely suppressed. And because it is instantaneous, it becomes completely cancelled since its duration expires instantly.

Another example...the wizard casts Mass Bear's Endurance with himself as the center, and a few allies outside of the field. The spell will be cast on him for it's duration, however he will not receive the effects until he leaves the area of the field, but his allies WILL receive it's benefit.

First of all, mass bear's endurance doesn't have a center, it targets one or more creatures. That being said, I guess this would work as you say IF the wizard is able to cast it from inside the antimagic field. And I still haven't really seen much evidence that counters the points I raised originally.

The spell merely supresses the magical effects, however it has no ability to dispel or end any magical effect. Magical items are not destroyed however their effects cannot be used as their actual existence is considered a magical effect and so they become mundane. There are a few spells that could be confusing, such as fireball...if it detonates inside the magic field does the fire then proceed to extend outside of the antimagic field and strike targets? I would likely say yes but it's probly a DM call even though the wording is pretty clear.

Magical items are neither here nor there, the wording is pretty clear when it comes to that. As for a fireball detonating within the field, it is completely suppressed for the same reason that scorching ray was. (It's an instantaneous spell with its origin inside the field.)

As I said before, it's pretty clear how antimagic field interacts with spells and abilities used outside the field, but passing into or through it. What I want to know is how much can you actually do inside it? And the hows and whys and wherefores and hithertos, thereof. I really do want to understand this.

[CyberRebirth]

Okay guys, RAI Anti-Magic field stops all spells short of epic spells and spells that are specifically pointed out in the description. Furthermore, the act of casting a spell is inherently magical, you cannot cast spells at all, period, while being affected by an anti-magic field. unless you have the Mystra feat. Therefore, if you are a mage that casts Anti-Magic Field on yourself you cannot cast spells, unless of course you have something that specifically says you can.

That is how it works RAI, and RAW as I see it.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

This is based on RAW and not balance or intend (even though intend could be argued to be clear based on the publication of the RC).

Suppressed is different from being negated, it strongly suggest that the effect is active but non-functioning.

A key part of what has already been quoted is:

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

(my emphasis)

So nothing prevents or dispels the use of spells within the area and line of effect is unblocked, which is all that is really needed for casting spells.

Additional rules about area spells and their point of origin was added, but that does not necessarily have anything to do with the caster's position, it only pertains to where the spell is aimed (except for spells where the spell originates from the caster, such as Scorching Ray (which means that there are some limits to the madness)).

[Woodsman]

Y'know, it times like this when I remember I have the Spell Compendium, and have access to the wonderful spell Antimagic Ray. Antimagic field the party spellcaster without touching the other party members.

Unless, of course the spellcaster makes their Will Save. Then it doesn't do much.

[Nohwl]

selective spell might allow you to cast antimagic field and be immune to most spells cast at you.

[Hawriel]

Its nice to know that wizards make enough mony to hire all these rules lawyers.

It's an antimagic field. No magic works inside it, inside or entering the field. So no your ray will not keep working if it just passes through to hit a target on the other side. The ray would hit the field and go poof. The same with AOE spells any one inside it. They would not be affected at all. Gust of Wind would work because the air is not magic. The magical effect is at the point of origin that created the energy to cause the wind.

[Keld Denar]

There is also the spell Invoke Magic, on page 212 in Lords of Magic. Its a swift action spell that functions in an AMF and allows you to cast any other spells for 1 round while in an AMF. Its a 9th level wizard spell though, and is in the oft maligned Evocation school, and has a 1000g material component cost. Still, cheaper than dying!

[CthulhuM]

RAW it doesn't seem to me like AMF prevents spellcasting. The spell describes many things it does do, but none of them include "spells cannot be cast inside an antimagic field," which, if they had wanted to, would really be a very simple clarification to add. The fact that it doesn't say this I think makes it pretty clear that spellcasting is allowed inside the field (at least by RAW - I would probably not allow it as a DM regardless of RAW).

As for RAI... well, that really isn't clear either. Yes, a source in Dragon magazine and a source in Faerun imply that spells can't normally be cast in an AMF, but Dragon and Faerun != core rules (and thank god for that...). Their interpretation is not necessarily the correct interpretation.

The note from rules compendium about a spell failing if its point of origin is inside an AMF is unrelated - the "point of origin" of a spell has nothing to do with the caster's position. Point of origin refers to the center point of a spell with an area effect (i.e. where the spell's effect spreads out from). It is somewhat unclear exactly which areas have points of origin - they are specifically mentioned for spheres, cylinders, bursts and emanations, but not for rays, lines or cones. Personally, I would say that a ray, line or cone has a point of origin at a corner of the caster's space. The others, however, all have selectable points of origin, and can be placed away from the caster if he is casting inside an AMF.

[tyckspoon]

Its nice to know that wizards make enough mony to hire all these rules lawyers.

It's an antimagic field. No magic works inside it, inside or entering the field. So no your ray will not keep working if it just passes through to hit a target on the other side. The ray would hit the field and go poof. The same with AOE spells any one inside it. They would not be affected at all. Gust of Wind would work because the air is not magic. The magical effect is at the point of origin that created the energy to cause the wind.

Well, yes, that's all fine, but it's not what the spell does. Antimagic Field is a lot like Iron Heart Surge in that it doesn't do a lot of what you would think it does, does do some stuff that makes no sense at all, and could have been fixed pretty simply with some clear errata or updated reprint in some book. But the crucial fact is that they weren't, and so any statement along the lines of 'Antimagic Field prevents all magic of any form, including spellcasting' has to be recognized as a houserule. Which is fine, just don't claim your houserule is what the actual rules text clearly says.

[Tokiko Mima]

Its nice to know that wizards make enough mony to hire all these rules lawyers.

It's an antimagic field. No magic works inside it, inside or entering the field. So no your ray will not keep working if it just passes through to hit a target on the other side. The ray would hit the field and go poof. The same with AOE spells any one inside it. They would not be affected at all. Gust of Wind would work because the air is not magic. The magical effect is at the point of origin that created the energy to cause the wind.

You know these are houserules you're stating, and not the actual rules regarding AMF, correct? The way the spell is written, certain spells DO work inside (Instantaneous conjurations, summoned creatures with spell resistance, prismatic/force spells, etc.) Nothing about an AMF dispels or cancels magic. It's strictly a magic suppression field that won't allow magic to have an effect inside it's radius.

Spells like Fireball fail to work in an AMF not because AMF negates them, but because when the spells activate inside the AMF their effect is instantly blocked from occurring by AMF. Technically, the spell itself still 'works' (which is why the caster still expends a spell slot) it just doesn't do anything at all. If you knew exactly when an AMF spell was to expire, you could cast a delayed blast fireball into the AMF several rounds in advance, and time it so it would bake the AMF's caster as he was recasting his AMF.

Gust of Wind, by the way, is magic; Evocation magic with a duration in fact. Lightning Bolt does not work in an AMF just because electricity is not magic. If it's a spell, spell-like, or supernatural ability that is not granted immunity to Antimagic in it's description or AMF's description, then it's simply suppressed when entering an AMF.

What what is being argued here is closer to Faerun's Null/Wild Magic. AMF is already too powerful for it's level anyway. It doesn't need additional power to be useful.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Its nice to know that wizards make enough mony to hire all these rules lawyers.

Yes it is amazing isn't it? Being paid 6 figures for appearing on an online message board to argue the wording of spells that it would cost less than 4 figures to have appear exactly the way WotC would want them to by simply issuing errata or just mentioning it in the text of the "newly" published book about the rules.

[Tokiko Mima]

Yes it is amazing isn't it? Being paid 6 figures for appearing on an online message board to argue the wording of spells that it would cost less than 4 figures to have appear exactly the way WotC would want them to by simply issuing errata or just mentioning it in the text of the "newly" published book about the rules.

Shhhh!!!

Remember the first and second rule of Wizard Club, Lord Silvanos.

[KillianHawkeye]

What what is being argued here is closer to Faerun's Null/Wild Magic. AMF is already too powerful for it's level anyway. It doesn't need additional power to be useful.

But it would actually be MORE powerful if it allowed the caster to continue using all his spells while being basically immune to most of the spells being cast back at him (instantaneous conjurations being the only thing I can think of that are no longer magical after they are cast).

Anyway, if Lord Silvanos says that line of effect is all you need to cast spells, I'll trust him. He's the expert, and this is the only topic I've ever disagreed with him about. I still don't get how the line about "suppressing but not dispelling" the spell jives with the line about "spells don't function", but maybe I am just getting too hung up on semantics here. I believe the intent was for spellcasting to be impossible inside the field, and will houserule it as such in my games. Thanks for clearing this up (as much as was possible), Silvanos! And sorry to be such a pain...

---===---

And in case anybody cares, I found a couple of interesting tidbits in the Monster Manual 3.5:

A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su).

Monsters who cast spells always have "spells" listed under their Special Attacks section, which means spellcasting must be either Ex, Sp, or Su. And while no source seems to specify which one of those spellcasting falls under, Rules Compendium does tell us that supernatural and spell-like abilities are affected by antimagic in the same way as spells are, which means the reverse must also be true. Which leads to...

Spell-like: Spell-like abilities are magical and ... ... go away in an antimagic field...

Supernatural: Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field...

So spell-like and supernatural abilities (and spellcasting ability, by association) "go away" in an antimagic field?

I think that the game designers were just as confused and divided about this issue as we are, guys, since there seem to be so many contradictions and interpretations sprinked about in various books. Just another thing to think about, I guess.