Slight rant about casters.

[Stevenson]

Okay, here's the issue. The big beef is antimagic field.

Whenever anyone brings up anti-magic field in a pro-fighter/anti-caster (which sadly seem to be one and the same these days), the pro-caster people will just say, "Well if the DM goes way out of their way to gimp casters, then it's just not fun." Or, "Yeah, but I mean AMF is just the DM trying to gimp casters, it's really not used!"

Okay, why isn't it used? Nobody seems to have a problem casting Wind Wall (very popular pro-caster arguement) to "go out of their way to gimp" archers. Nobody has issues with rays of enfeeblement used to "go out of their way to gimp" fighters. So why is another spell, used by spellcasters, so out of line?


Please, answer this for me. I really need to know.

[DaMullet]

Because it's very common for those who are too strong for their own good and know it to be rather hypocritical. It's rather sad, but what can you do?

[the_tick_rules]

i dunno, good question.

[Icewalker]

I think AMF completely stops a caster, while the other two just weaken and can be dispelled, but I could be wrong.

The main thing I think is that AMF can only be used by other casters

I'd suggest homebrew magic items for SR, or at very high levels like a small anti-magic field amulet. That'd be cool.

[Emperor Tippy]

Well first, AMF really isn't that great.

But AMF can't be cast by a fighter type. It requires a caster. So the expectation that a fighter type has access to an AMF is out of line. The expectation that a wizard has access to wind wall or ray of enfeeblement isn't out of line at all by comparison.

Next up is the fact that AMF's turn wizards into commoners with a good will save. RoE just lowers the fighters damage output a bit. Wind Wall negates archers but they are static defenses. The archer just uses a run action to get a shot that doesn't care about the windwall.

[Stevenson]

Well first, AMF really isn't that great.

But AMF can't be cast by a fighter type. It requires a caster. So the expectation that a fighter type has access to an AMF is out of line. The expectation that a wizard has access to wind wall or ray of enfeeblement isn't out of line at all by comparison.

Next up is the fact that AMF's turn wizards into commoners with a good will save. RoE just lowers the fighters damage output a bit. Wind Wall negates archers but they are static defenses. The archer just uses a run action to get a shot that doesn't care about the windwall.

About Ray of enfeeblement, a bunch of people don't seem to use it to lower damage a bit, they use it to lower strength to about, say, 1, where they can't lift themselves out of their armor. *negated*

Windwall also seems to be able to wrap around some casters, giving them total windy defense. Not sure how valid that is, just heard it once.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

AMF does not completely destroy casters. In fact, there's a rediculous number of ways to get around. Cheater of Mystara, for example, can cast in AMF. Also, it doesn't do jack or squat about Conjuration (Creation) effect. Can still trap the poor fighter with walls without any problems.

[Stevenson]

AMF does not completely destroy casters. In fact, there's a rediculous number of ways to get around. Cheater of Mystara, for example, can cast in AMF. Also, it doesn't do jack or squat about Conjuration (Creation) effect. Can still trap the poor fighter with walls without any problems.

Okay, I'm gonna try to be fair to both sides here.

Okay, technically it does stop conjuration creation effects-just not those cast outside the AMF. Conjurations being cast by a person outside the field are, unlike evocations, not stopped by the AMF.

[Droodle]

AMF is one of the best ways to take out casters if the one who casts it is willing to become extraordinarily vulnerable. That said, the spell is absolutely perfect for Favored Souls and Clerics or Gish with a natural means of flight. What happens to the wizard under the affects of a flight spell who gets charged by a flighted oppenent in an anti-magic field?

Spoiler

Show

Splat.

[Greendevilman]

The thing is that AMFs arn't really a good solution because they're:

-Incredibly uncommon
-Only usable by casters
-Either short lived or very expensive
-Have tiny areas of effect
-Effectively negatable by casters via certain effects (Prismatic effects, Invoke Magic, etc.)
-Generaly gimp warrior PC types at least as hard as they gimp casters. The warrior's gear doesn't work at all and any CR appropriate melee monster will rip him several new orfices. Its only good for warrior PCs when they face other warrior PCs, and a caster can usually just step out and use superior mobility to run the hell away from the AMFed fighter who cannot follow because he can't use magic.

For all of these reasons AMF is generally considered a solution that is suggested be people who are frustrated by casters and don't know what the hell they're talking about. The only way they're effective is if you're encountering them every 100 yards or so which doesn't fit with the way D&D is presented, and you might as well just load all the warriors up on Artifact weapons instead which is at least somewhat in genre.

[SpiderBrigade]

As Icewalker (edit: and apparently everyone else), said, where do antimagic fields come from? From other casters, or else from DM fiat.

The thing is, what people end up arguing is that "casters don't beat fighter-types because of Antimagic Field." They give all kinds of examples of how a monk or other melee character with an AMF cast on him can really mess with a wizard.

First of all, how does the monk get AMF cast on him? The party wizard? So what would he be doing without that? If he's somehow gotten ranks in UMD to cast it from a wand, or has a use-activated item, he's investing a lot of his energy in countering casters (Which brings me to my next point).

Second, the party isn't fighting amongst themselves, they are out in the world fighting various NPCs and monsters. If 2 out of every 3 encounters comes pre-equipped with an Antimagic Field or equivalent items, the DM is taking extra steps to nerf magic.

To make the Wind Wall comparison actually analogous, it'd be like every enemy you fight having a use-activated item of Wind Wall. Or the rogue meeting nothing but undead, plants, and constructs. The occasional "immune to your class abilities" encounter is okay, but if it happens enough to actually make your character weaker, the DM is doing it on purpose.

Of course, all of this is kind of a tangent anyway, since (as I'm sure the resident wizard-gurus will point out) Antimagic Field does not completely shut down a caster. He is certainly strongly constrained, but it's not a win-button for a melee build either.

[Greendevilman]

Okay, I'm gonna try to be fair to both sides here.

Okay, technically it does stop conjuration creation effects-just not those cast outside the AMF. Conjurations being cast by a person outside the field are, unlike evocations, not stopped by the AMF.

Right, but AMF has a 10 foot radius so the person casting the conjuration effect can just step outside and fix the "problem".

[Emperor Tippy]

About Ray of enfeeblement, a bunch of people don't seem to use it to lower damage a bit, they use it to lower strength to about, say, 1, where they can't lift themselves out of their armor. *negated*

If the fighter is caring that much stuff then they deserve it. Full plate is 50 pounds, add 20 pounds for other items. The rest should be in a bag of holding, HHH or portable hole.

If the fighter can't take 11 points of strength damage at those levels and still carry his stuff then he isn't built well.

Windwall also seems to be able to wrap around some casters, giving them total windy defense. Not sure how valid that is, just heard it once.

Yeah, you can do that with windwall. I forgot that (stupid being tired).

I've said before, it should be weakened. It is overpowered for its level.

[Droodle]

at those levels and still carry his stuff then he isn't built well.

11? Hah! A wizard or Gish (a Gish is better for ray spells) can easily do 17-22 points of strength damage in a single round by casting a quickened ray of enfeeblement followed by a maximized ray. Most plate clad fighters are not going to move well after that....if at all. A fighter is going to be carrying a lot more gear than just his armor, after all (spare weapon, some sort of ranged weapon, shield, etc). On the other hand, targeting his dexterity is even easier.

[Emperor Tippy]

11? Hah! A wizard or Gish (a Gish is better for ray spells) can easily do 17-22 points of strength damage in a single round by casting a quickened ray of enfeeblement followed by a maximized ray. Most plate clad fighters are not going to move well after that....if at all. A fighter is going to be carrying a lot more gear than just his armor, after all (spare weapon, some sort of ranged weapon, shield, etc). On the other hand, targeting his dexterity is even easier.

Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't stack with its self.

People really should read spells before they comment.

[Droodle]

Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't stack with its self.

People really should read spells before they comment.

From the SRD.

A coruscating ray springs from your hand. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a penalty to Strength equal to 1d6+1 per two caster levels (maximum 1d6+5). The subject’s Strength score cannot drop below 1.

Where's the part about it not stacking with itself, again?

[Emperor Tippy]

A coruscating ray springs from your hand. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a penalty to Strength equal to 1d6+1 per two caster levels (maximum 1d6+5). The subject’s Strength score cannot drop below 1.

Penalties don't stack with themselves if from the same source.

If it actually did ability damage it would stack.

[Counterpower]

I think AMF is a good defense for dragons.

Wizard: "Hah, eat my Shivering Touch! Goodbye red dragon!"
Dragon: "Um. No. I have an Antimagic Field up."

After all, a dragon has pretty formidable defenses if you can't use magic on him. Sure, doing that repeatedly is a bad idea, since the DM shouldn't just take away a class's abilities. But I think it's a perfectly reasonable defense that at least one dragon would consider. It'd have to be a pretty powerful dragon though.

[Droodle]

Penalties don't stack with themselves if from the same source.

If it actually did ability damage it would stack.

Fair enough. I'd just request that next time, you don't just automatically accuse people of not reading the spell descriptions before posting. In my case, I actually had, and didn't like your insinuation very much.

[Shoyliguad]

AMF is really weak and I hope that WotC wises up and figures out a way to give it to non-casters. No caster is EVER going to use AMF becuase it makes them useless... no caster except maybe a druid wants that. My alternitive to it is simple, I accept no super powerful casters that make everyone else worthless and can run through my campaign easily. You are the DM, you have full right to say no to this and that whenever you feel it kills the game...

[Counterpower]

AMF is really weak and I hope that WotC wises up and figures out a way to give it to non-casters. No caster is EVER going to use AMF becuase it makes them useless... no caster except maybe a druid wants that. My alternitive to it is simple, I accept no super powerful casters that make everyone else worthless and can run through my campaign easily. You are the DM, you have full right to say no to this and that whenever you feel it kills the game...

I'll be standing at a safe distance when you tell a wyrm gold dragon that he's useless without magic. And I'll inform your next of kin as well.

[ByeLindgren]

Well, you could still reduce STR by 12-17 and DEX by 6 with a Quickened Ray of Enfeeblement and then a Split Ray of Exhaustion. 17 STR might be enough to stop some tanks in their tracks, no?

More on topic, though, AMF is just one specific, contrived solution to a superpowered problem. Even if it did work whenever it was used, it wouldn't (and couldn't) address the fact that the full caster is still really, really powerful in every other encounter. If Archers did a brokenly large amount of damage (let's say one trillion vile damage per arrow), the wizard being able to Wind Wall it away would not really fix the problem.

[Dausuul]

I think AMF is a good defense for dragons.

Wizard: "Hah, eat my Shivering Touch! Goodbye red dragon!"
Dragon: "Um. No. I have an Antimagic Field up."

After all, a dragon has pretty formidable defenses if you can't use magic on him. Sure, doing that repeatedly is a bad idea, since the DM shouldn't just take away a class's abilities. But I think it's a perfectly reasonable defense that at least one dragon would consider. It'd have to be a pretty powerful dragon though.

AMF on dragons is a scary, scary thing, and it's a perfectly sensible tactic for the dragon to use. Unfortunately, dragons that can cast AMF are all CR 19+, so they're only useful for countering casters at quite high levels.

[Draz74]

What other people are referring to in passing, but not saying explicitly, is that most casters don't like casting AMF because it is a two-edged sword, self-destructive, and taking away most of its own caster's good options. That is why AMF is rarely seen.

Wizards don't like casting it because then they can't cast any more spells.

Sorcerers don't like casting it because then they can't cast any more spells.

Clerics don't usually like casting it because then they can't cast any more spells, including the buffs that make them great in melee.

Druids don't usually like casting it because then they can't cast any more spells. Well, that and it's not on their spell list.

Strong gish builds, including especially-martial Clerics and Favored Souls (especially the latter, with their natural flight, in some situations) can be exceptions to this rule. And the aforementioned Dragon is the ultimate gish.

[ohgodwhyamionfi]

I think AMF is a good defense for dragons.

Wizard: "Hah, eat my Shivering Touch! Goodbye red dragon!"
Dragon: "Um. No. I have an Antimagic Field up."

After all, a dragon has pretty formidable defenses if you can't use magic on him. Sure, doing that repeatedly is a bad idea, since the DM shouldn't just take away a class's abilities. But I think it's a perfectly reasonable defense that at least one dragon would consider. It'd have to be a pretty powerful dragon though.

Uh yeah that's not just "good"... a dragon that has an AMF up is ridiculous, it can beat pretty much anything except other monsters of a way higher CR... a dragon casting AMF is the kind of cheesy combo players buy candles of invocation for. A fighter can't do anything to a dragon in an AMF either. The melee guy can't get close and the archer can't beat DR/magic when his magic arrows are negated.
I guess a wizard can gate in a dream larva or something else ridiculous and epic, but that doesn't make it ok.

[Stevenson]

To make the Wind Wall comparison actually analogous, it'd be like every enemy you fight having a use-activated item of Wind Wall. Or the rogue meeting nothing but undead, plants, and constructs. The occasional "immune to your class abilities" encounter is okay, but if it happens enough to actually make your character weaker, the DM is doing it on purpose.

Oh, don't worry, the PCs aren't facing enemies with windwall.

Just everything the PC wizard fights. That's what I'm saying. If wizards can gimp other classes without a worry, why can't casters gimp casters?

[Counterpower]

I think AMF is just another weapon in the wizard's arsenal....... one that takes a little effort to use effectively, sure, but is absolutely devastating when used correctly against other casters. If you can find some way to gain a melee edge on your opponent without magic (hard, I admit), then you could use AMF. As I have said, I believe dragons are one caster that really get serious mileage out of AMF, or any other monster that's just physically more powerful than a wizard (and has casting abilities). I can certainly imagine using it if one of my players went around killing high-power dragons as they pleased.

Hmmm, what about eldritch knight? A wizard should be able to get far enough for AMF, and be distinctly more powerful than a straight caster in melee. As a mage killing build for one of my NPCs, maybe. Although the logistics involved with actually leveling that build as a PC would be challenging indeed.

ohgodwhyamionfi: Perhaps, just maybe, you thought of any number of other things the party could do? At the level this is at, gate is a distinct possibility. Running away may be what's necessary, at least while you come up with a better plan. Heck, I've created an encounter before that wasn't supposed to be a combat encounter, where the NPC had a combo that forced a bunch of casters to either engage a paladin in melee or run for their lives. They really were not supposed to fight. I actually intended them to ally, but they were too hardheaded for that. Defeat is not always death, and victory is not always "they're dead". Considering the aforementioned paladin failed to capture the party, who really won that encounter?

[SpiderBrigade]

Oh, don't worry, the PCs aren't facing enemies with windwall.

Just everything the PC wizard fights. That's what I'm saying. If wizards can gimp other classes without a worry, why can't casters gimp casters?

They can, I think is the point. The reason you hear people talking about AMF the way they do is that it's used as a general response to the superiority of casters. If you're only seeing the occasional spell-casting enemy use AMF, it's not putting a dent in the overpowerdness of wizards, even if it's highly effective. Again, it isn't necessarily.

On the other hand, if there are disproportionately many encounters with AMF, the DM's doing it on purpose and it ceases to be the same as an enemy wizard shutting down the archer with wind wall.

To boil it down, either only other casters are using the spell, in which case it fails to fix the balance problem, OR it is fixing the balance problem, in which case the enemies are being custom-tailored to nerf the wizard.

[PinkysBrain]

AMF is really weak and I hope that WotC wises up and figures out a way to give it to non-casters.

Antimagic torc from Underdark, also rune magic from Faerun can be used with any divine spell ... a single use rune of AMF (from a cleric with protection domain) would cost you 3300 gp.

PS. if you can't find a way to counter AMF you shouldn't be playing a wizard :p

[Emperor Tippy]

I think AMF is just another weapon in the wizard's arsenal....... one that takes a little effort to use effectively, sure, but is absolutely devastating when used correctly against other casters. If you can find some way to gain a melee edge on your opponent without magic (hard, I admit), then you could use AMF. As I have said, I believe dragons are one caster that really get serious mileage out of AMF, or any other monster that's just physically more powerful than a wizard (and has casting abilities). I can certainly imagine using it if one of my players went around killing high-power dragons as they pleased.

Again, Meh.

A move action to retreat 15 feet followed by a wall of force, prismatic sphere, prismatic wall, etc.

You can beat most any dragon with 2 castings of wall of force.

Hmmm, what about eldritch knight? A wizard should be able to get far enough for AMF, and be distinctly more powerful than a straight caster in melee. As a mage killing build for one of my NPCs, maybe. Although the logistics involved with actually leveling that build as a PC would be challenging indeed.

Retreat 10 feet and use Force Cage. Wizard wins.