[3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field

[Curmudgeon]

Q259

Caster A casts Antimagic Field on themself.

Caster B casts a summon monster/nature's ally and chooses a creature with reach (Elder Earth Elemental), and places it outside of the Antimagic Field.

The summoned creature attacks Caster A, or anyone else that is inside of the Antimagic Field.

Does the summon wink out? Is it able to attack normally, without the benefit of any magical enhancements to it's attack?

Thanks!

A259
The summoner creature can't melee attack the caster. Any part of the creature that enters (in this case an arm or something) winks out of existance.

A259

Technically by RAW attacks do not normally involve entering the target's square, so I think the summoned creature would be able to attack unhindered.

Yes, only the arm winks out. My reasoning is this. In the last sentence of the description of the AMF spell in the PHB, it says that "Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier in unaffected by the field."

It makes sense that any part lying IN the AMF is affected. Thus, part of a creature can be affected by AMF.

In the same way that any magical arrow entering an AMF loses its magical properties, any portion of the creature (like its arm) entering the AMF winks out of existance.

Any part of the summoned creature, including its gear, are affected by AMF and so the arrows will also wink out of existance. Same thing with a sword that a summoned creature carries. Basically, if something will poof when the duration of Summon Creature is up, then it'll be affected by the AMF.

While this is an interesting way of modeling D&D attacks for a house rule, this is the RAW thread, and douglas has provided the RAW answer: the summoned creature, outside the Antimagic Field, can make melee attacks against a creature inside the AF.

How do you work out this bit then?

It is raw that creatures partially outside the AMF aren't affected on the parts that are outside.

Douglas is wrong.

Most D&D attacks don't require entering the target creature's square. The attacker, outside the Antimagic Field, doesn't (by RAW) "partially" leave their own square. All aspects of melee attacks are resolved in the attacker's space. Ranged attacks, on the other hand, are resolved in the target's space.

You'll need to provide a rules citation to back that up.

Do note that many aspects of combat are simplified by the D&D rules, and this is one such simplification. While in the real world you must extend a melee weapon to reach a target, in the D&D world you just need to be within your weapon's reach; no actual movement in the target's direction takes place. This is certainly no stranger than having no facing direction in the D&D world, another game rule simplification; in the real word your eyes don't work in all directions simultaneously.

Let me use this as supporting evidence then. Consider the following situation. You've got a human fighter of normal size and a non-reach weapon. A Large creature with a natural reach of 10 ft and without Improved Grapple or Improved Grab or any such similar abilities attempts to start a grapple on the human fighter. The creature starts 10 ft away from the human, so the human can't reach the creature normally, and doesn't threaten the creature.

Part of the grappling rules says: Make a touch attack to your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target. If the attack deals damage, the grapple fails.

No where in there does it say anything about the target having to threaten you. In order for this to make sense at all, the human must be striking at the creature's limbs as the creature extends its limbs forward to try to make that initial Touch Attack on the human.

By this example, it is not hard to see how a summoned creature can be partially affected by an AMF by extending its limbs into it for whatever reason.

Or that you can heal someone via drowning?

However little sense healing by drowning makes, this is the RAW thread, not the RAMS thread. However, it's important to note that grappling is different from other attacks because you enter the target's square on a successful grapple attempt, which allows the AMF to apply by RAW. So the example is inapplicable in any case. To continue this discussion, I suggest you start a new thread. Otherwise we will be derailing this one.

This quotes all the preceding discussion from the Simple Q&A thread.

[Curmudgeon]

You have not refuted my point. The AoO happens at the Touch Attack stage of grappling, before the grappler enters the target's square. That reasoning alone is enough to say that creature can and do extend part of their limbs into other peoples' squares. This is completely RAW and not Rules as Makes Sense or whatever RAMS is.

attack of opportunity

A single extra melee attack per round that a combatant can make when an opponent within reach takes an action that provokes attacks of opportunity. Cover prevents attacks of opportunity.

Attacks of opportunity are always limited to attackers who are in squares that you can reach. The touch attack to start a grapple is no exception to this.

[Math_Mage]

Ah, I guess I missed the point about the nonexistent AoO. I think this is forgivable.

[Tanuki Tales]

You didn't really refute his point at all. All you did was quote the exact wording of Attacks of Opportunity, which in the situation given, means that the Fighter threatens the arms of the Large creature attempting to grapple since the Large creature itself doesn't actually enter the same square as the Fighter until after it is successful on the grapple check.

[Noneoyabizzness]

frosty is right. the creature literally loses his hand when it goes into the range of the amf. cant grapple without no hands. and hands need to be closer than 10ft to touch the person in question.

all other issues on the point is moot. amf works that way against summoned creatures (phb 200) now if a summoned mosnter uses a nonsummoned military fork with enough reach that is a different story

[Greenish]

You didn't really refute his point at all. All you did was quote the exact wording of Attacks of Opportunity, which in the situation given, means that the Fighter threatens the arms of the Large creature attempting to grapple

The original was in the Q&A by RAW thread. By RAW, there's no such thing as "threatening someone's arms".

[Tanuki Tales]

The original was in the Q&A by RAW thread. By RAW, there's no such thing as "threatening someone's arms".

That only holds true if by RAW a Large or larger creature never incurs AoO when trying to grapple a smaller creature that it isn't adjacent to or with in its reach, while it clearly says that attempting to grapple without the necessary feats does incur an AoO against the subject being grappled. Thus, since the grappler does not move until the grapple is established the only valid target for the AoO is the limbs being used to attempt the grapple.

[Greenish]

That only holds true if by RAW a Large or larger creature never incurs AoO when trying to grapple a smaller creature that it isn't adjacent to or with in its reach, while it clearly says that attempting to grapple without the necessary feats does incur an AoO against the subject being grappled.

It provokes an AoO, but without reach the target can't take it.

And that's only tangentially relevant to the original discussion about AMFs.

[Tanuki Tales]

It provokes an AoO, but without reach the target can't take it.

And that's only tangentially relevant to the original discussion about AMFs.

Not really, seeing as one of Frosty's points was exactly what I said.

Edit: And grappling rules never say you have to threaten the grappler to take the AoO that they incur by attempting to grapple, so again, the only logical target by RAW is the limbs being used to establish the grapple.

[Zaydos]

Not really, seeing as one of Frosty's points was exactly what I said.

Edit: And grappling rules never say you have to threaten the grappler to take the AoO that they incur by attempting to grapple, so again, the only logical target by RAW is the limbs being used to establish the grapple.

Grappling rules don't have to specify, the AoO rules specify that you have to threaten the grappler. RAW the AoO rules specifically state the target must be within reach, RAW does not take into account things like reaching your arms into an opponent's square. Actually at that point you should be taking into account that a character wielding a large greatsword ought to have reach because the weapon is more than a square long (which would make powerful build noticeably better). RAW doesn't take these things into account.

[tyckspoon]

Edit: And grappling rules never say you have to threaten the grappler to take the AoO that they incur by attempting to grapple, so again, the only logical target by RAW is the limbs being used to establish the grapple.

Grappling rules don't have to, the AoO and threatening rules say it. You can only AoO into squares you threaten.

Feh. Ninja'd in detail.

[Tanuki Tales]

Grappling rules don't have to specify, the AoO rules specify that you have to threaten the grappler. RAW the AoO rules specifically state the target must be within reach, RAW does not take into account things like reaching your arms into an opponent's square. Actually at that point you should be taking into account that a character wielding a large greatsword ought to have reach because the weapon is more than a square long (which would make powerful build noticeably better). RAW doesn't take these things into account.

And as RAW states, Specific trumps General. The rules on Grappling specifically state that a grappler always incurs an AoO when attempting to establish a grapple without the necessary feats.

@Spoon: Specific trumps General.

[Greenish]

Not really, seeing as one of Frosty's points was exactly what I said.

Yeah, and it wasn't relevant then either.

Edit: And grappling rules never say you have to threaten the grappler to take the AoO that they incur by attempting to grapple, so again, the only logical target by RAW is the limbs being used to establish the grapple.

Grapple rules (bless them) make an exception where you specifically don't have to threaten the attacker for it to provoke AoO. They don't make an exception for the rules where you have to be able to reach the target to attack it.

Just because something provokes AoO doesn't mean you can automatically take it. The grapple rules don't say that you can make an AoO, they say that the opponent provokes. If, say, you've already used your AoO for the turn, or been hit with Douse the Flames maneuver, or can't actually reach the target, well, tough luck.

[Edit]:

The rules on Grappling specifically state that a grappler always incurs an AoO when attempting to establish a grapple without the necessary feats.

They say starting a grapple provokes an AoO, but make no exceptions for being able to take it.

[Tanuki Tales]

Yeah, and it wasn't relevant then either.
Grapple rules (bless them) make an exception where you specifically don't have to threaten the attacker for it to provoke AoO. They don't make an exception for the rules where you have to be able to reach the target to attack it.

Just because something provokes AoO doesn't mean you can automatically take it. The grapple rules don't say that you can make an AoO, they say that the opponent provokes. If, say, you've already used your AoO for the turn, or been hit with Douse the Flames maneuver, or can't actually reach the target, well, tough luck.

That holds true in situations except for grappling. Yes, if you used your AoO for the turn and don't have combat reflexes you can't do diddly about something trying to grapple you. That's the action economy at work and Grappling only states that you always incur an AoO not that you always get one against the grappler.

The Grappling rules, as we've both agreed knowing, doesn't require you to threaten the target to incur the AoO, thus they don't have to be in your reach to take the AoO if you have one to take.

Again, by RAW, the limbs being used to grapple are the target of the incurred AoO.

[Greenish]

The Grappling rules, as we've both agreed knowing, doesn't require you to threaten the target to incur the AoO, thus they don't have to be in your reach to take the AoO if you have one to take.

They make no such provision.

[Tanuki Tales]

They make no such provision.

Yes, they do. Otherwise they wouldn't plainly state that a grappler always incurs an AoO.

Edit: And this grapple situation that Frosty propositioned does pertain to the original question since the original question concerned a summoned monster with Reach attacking a target in an AMF. So a grapple is the same kind of situation save that its a Touch Attack instead of a normal melee attack.

[Thinker]

Yes, they do. Otherwise they wouldn't plainly state that a grappler always incurs an AoO.

Edit: And this grapple situation that Frosty propositioned does pertain to the original question since the original question concerned a summoned monster with Reach attacking a target in an AMF. So a grapple is the same kind of situation save that its a Touch Attack instead of a normal melee attack.

Where does it say in the rules that your reach is extended by being able to make an attack of opportunity?

[Greenish]

Yes, they do. Otherwise they wouldn't plainly state that a grappler always incurs an AoO.

No, you're inferring something which is not said. The rules don't say grapple incurs an AoO, they say it provokes. Someone provoking an AoO, as has been established, doesn't mean you're automatically allowed to take one.

[Tanuki Tales]

Where does it say in the rules that your reach is extended by being able to make an attack of opportunity?

Nowhere. In the rules for AoO you need to threaten the target to incur the AoO.

But we're speaking of Grapple rules, which not only state you don't need to threaten the target attempting to grapple you but also that their action (without the necessary feats) always incurs an AoO from the attempted grappled party.

Thus, by RAW, the limbs being used to grapple is the target of the AoO.

Edit:

@Greenish: I'm using incur as a synonym for Provoke.

[Reynard]

Step 1: Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to grapple. If the attack of opportunity deals damage, the grapple attempt fails. (Certain monsters do not provoke attacks of opportunity when they attempt to grapple, nor do characters with the Improved Grapple feat.) If the attack of opportunity misses or fails to deal damage, proceed to Step 2.

So, this discussion is somewhat pointless.

[Tanuki Tales]

So, this discussion is somewhat pointless.

Not really. The discussion in question is trying to determine if, by RAW, a summoned monster with reach can make melee attacks against a PC in an AMF. We're just using a grappling situation as evidence.

[Tyger]

Except you don't ever, by RAW, enter another's square to attack.

EX: A giant attacks a longsword wielding medium sized human 10 feet away. Said human can not, by RAW, ready to attack with a non-reach weapon, when it's hand comes into your square to hit you. If you could, it would render reach far less useful. Perhaps justifiably so.

RAW, you don't enter the square, so your summoned creatures can and do attack just fine. Doesn't make logical sense, but welcome to D&D.

EDIT: And I believe (though correct me if I am wrong) what Reynard was noting was that the grapple rules don't say you get to take an AoO, they say the grappler "provokes" an AoO. Lots of times a target will provoke an AoO and, for one reason or another, the other person doesn't get to take said AoO. If the target of the grapple had already taken their one AoO that round (and didn't have Combat Reflexes) they wouldn't get to take the AoO. Provoking and Making are two seperate parts of the AoO rules.

EDIT 2: I mistakenly used Hydra for the example of a reach critter using its own body to attack and not incurring AoOs, forgetting of course that the Hydra is the exception to the rule - specific trumping general again! :)

[Tanuki Tales]

Except you don't ever, by RAW, enter another's square to attack.

EX: A Hydra attacks a longsword wielding medium sized human 10 feet away. Said human can not, by RAW, ready to attack with a non-reach weapon, when it's head comes into your square to bite you. If you could, it would render reach far less useful. Perhaps justifiably so.

RAW, you don't enter the square, so your summoned creatures can and do attack just fine. Doesn't make logical sense, but welcome to D&D.

But the AMF states that Summoned creatures and incorporeal creatures who enter an AMF blink out of existence.

The discussion isn't whether the monster enters the PC's square but whether the Monster with Reach can attack the PC who's inside the AMF while the monster is outside of it.

Edit: But that's concerning the Action Economy, which we aren't discussing here.

[Tyger]

But the AMF states that Summoned creatures and incorporeal creatures who enter an AMF blink out of existence.

The discussion isn't whether the monster enters the PC's square but whether the Monster with Reach can attack the PC who's inside the AMF while the monster is outside of it.

Edit: But that's concerning the Action Economy, which we aren't discussing here.

And again, this question is answered via RAW. RAW you do not enter any other squares when you are attacking. So the summoned creature never enters the squares enclosed by the AMF. Illogical as hell to think that a critter reaches across 10 feet of space to smack the mage at the center of the AMF without ever crossing that space, but there you have it. That's RAW for you. And there are no rules to support the alternate point. There's logic, reason, common sense, but no rules.

[Grommen]

Getting back onto the subject (At least I think)

In previous posts summoned elemental effects are supposed to be allowed to happen inside this Anti-Magic Field. IE you stand on the side of the bubble and hurl summoned fire spells. This is supposed to work (Not by me but other posters). Wile I strongly disagree, thus has been so.

So why would a summoned monsters arms vanish when he put them into the field? If they do, would they not wink right back the second he pulled them out?

This would indicated that any magic, summoned or not, can not exist inside this Anti-Magic Field.

Let us be consistent then. Either A....summoned/conjured effects work if you create them outside the field and send them in. Or B...No magic can function, summoned/conjured period.

Me personally I favor the "Anti-Magic Field suppresses all magic period" way of thinking.

[Noneoyabizzness]

And again, this question is answered via RAW. RAW you do not enter any other squares when you are attacking. So the summoned creature never enters the squares enclosed by the AMF. Illogical as hell to think that a critter reaches across 10 feet of space to smack the mage at the center of the AMF without ever crossing that space, but there you have it. That's RAW for you. And there are no rules to support the alternate point. There's logic, reason, common sense, but no rules.

raw doesnt say in the squares, it says in the area, and it specifically says parts in the area. if he takes a swing the parts that get within the radius of the mage cease to exist untill they leave the area. and you can't hit someone with something that ceases to exist, let allon use nonexistant things to institute a grapple.

again military forks or boulder tossing help here as such things may not have been summoned. given such they may continue to exist within the area of the amf.

[Zaydos]

Summons are a type of conjuration effect, but not the only type of conjuration effect.

The Orb spells work because they are 1) instantaneous, and 2) creation. You are creating something, not summoning it.

Disclaimer: I think that the orbs being shot into AMFs is stupid and a bad design choice, but that's the rules behind it.

Summons specifically do disappear if they enter an AMF, unlike Called creatures (also summoned by a Conjuration effect).

Edit:

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.

Nothing about parts. Personally I'd rule that they'd have to fully enter the field, but RAW it is either all of them disappear or none of them, nothing about parts of them vanishing.

[Greenish]

In previous posts summoned elemental effects are supposed to be allowed to happen inside this Anti-Magic Field. IE you stand on the side of the bubble and hurl summoned fire spells. This is supposed to work (Not by me but other posters). Wile I strongly disagree, thus has been so.

We're not trying to reach a reasonable houserule here, but figure out the Rules as Written.

Let us be consistent then. Either A....summoned/conjured effects work if you create them outside the field and send them in. Or B...No magic can function, summoned/conjured period.

But that's false dichotomy. Instantaneous conjurations work just fine within AMF, while summoned creatures do not.

And then the question is whether the summoned creature with reach enters AMF or not when attacking from outside it, and as far as I can tell, the RAW answer is "no".

Grapple rules don't help here, because, as I pointed out: "Someone provoking an AoO doesn't mean you're automatically allowed to take one."

[Noneoyabizzness]

Getting back onto the subject (At least I think)

In previous posts summoned elemental effects are supposed to be allowed to happen inside this Anti-Magic Field. IE you stand on the side of the bubble and hurl summoned fire spells. This is supposed to work (Not by me but other posters). Wile I strongly disagree, thus has been so.

So why would a summoned monsters arms vanish when he put them into the field? If they do, would they not wink right back the second he pulled them out?

This would indicated that any magic, summoned or not, can not exist inside this Anti-Magic Field.

Let us be consistent then. Either A....summoned/conjured effects work if you create them outside the field and send them in. Or B...No magic can function, summoned/conjured period.

Me personally I favor the "Anti-Magic Field suppresses all magic period" way of thinking.

if the fire created came from an instantaneous duration magic effect like create water, then yes it can be hurled in. the magic ended after its appearance and now it simply exists. if it has a duration then it is held there by magic and can be effected by amf. if it is from an evocation effect it doesnt work in the amf. this is how amf works

[Noneoyabizzness]

Summons are a type of conjuration effect, but not the only type of conjuration effect.

The Orb spells work because they are 1) instantaneous, and 2) creation. You are creating something, not summoning it.

Disclaimer: I think that the orbs being shot into AMFs is stupid and a bad design choice, but that's the rules behind it.

Summons specifically do disappear if they enter an AMF, unlike Called creatures (also summoned by a Conjuration effect).

Edit:


Nothing about parts. Personally I'd rule that they'd have to fully enter the field, but RAW it is either all of them disappear or none of them, nothing about parts of them vanishing.

last line in amf specifically stated about monsters whos parts are outside the amf have those parts outside the amf not affected. summoned mosnter parts effected are going to go away and cease to be.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm