OOTS #1300 - The Discussion Thread

[brian 333]

Honestly? Not really seeing the distinction, especially if it actually makes running things more difficult and not less.

The real question is "what kind of material blocks the effect of an AMF?" IMO. This is not the same as some kind of burst type effect. An AMF equally affects everything and everybody within the defined "area" of the effect itself. The idea that this is somehow blocked, or will create a "magic area within an area no magic works" is strange all by itself. I actually have a hard time accepting even walls and floors blocking this effect (it's not physical, or causing damage, or billowing out in a cloud or anything, right?). But the idea that a living body does?

Nah. Not seeing it. Everything in the area is affected by the AMF. Every Thing. Period. No exceptions. Putting something in a pot with a lid on it? Still affected. Swallowing it? Still affected. It's just a vastly easier way of running the effect. As I said earlier, otherwise you have to eternally carve out exceptions, and then exceptions to the exceptions, etc, etc, etc.

Why would an object inside someone be affected, but not a living being inside someone? And is it really about "someone"? What if I wrap myself in living skin? Am I immune? What if I swim along inside a gelatinout cube? I'm fine now? Dunno. Just seems silly.

Because the rules are based on the general rather than the specific.

In a storytelling game, literally anything can happen, most of which the authors of the game rules never imagined. The spellcasting rules were created without anyone ever imagining what would happen to a polymorphed creature swallowed by another creature, then put into an antimagic field. And if they had thought of that one, there are still an infinity of other things they did not.

Specifically, by RAW, a glass pane, forcecage or wall, or any physical object blocks that portion of the cone it obstructs. In this specific case, Calder in an AMF blocks the field from affecting anything inside him. (Remember the kobold on the tail analogy?) It is not logical. It does not have to be.

And if you find that you cannot enforce that rule because it offends your sense of correctness, then in your game your rulings rule.

Cones have a point of origin, a maximum distance, and an arc. If a ray from the point of origin, within the given arc, contacts an object, it creates a shadow. This is illuminated by the image of a flashlight shining into a space, casting shadows from objects within the cone of light. Imagine instead of photons there are magitons and antimagitons. In the AMF, the antimagitons which are blocked cannot neutralize magic in the shadows.

[bunsen_h]

Back in my edgy high school days (mercifully) long past, I was rather fascinated by absinthe because it's usually green (I never saw the appeal of the red version, let alone the boring colourless "bleu" one) and very potent, so I know this and that about the thing since. And the more I learned about the nature of copper posioning in the meantime, the more the whole notion seems to track.

Ah, I knew we can trust the resident chemist to make it sound even worse!

I've known for a long time about the use of copper arsenate in things like wallpaper. It's one of the ways in which people are believed to have accumulated arsenic poisoning, from the dust from that pretty green dye. (Pratchett used it as one of the red herrings in Feet of Clay.) I didn't know about its having been used in cheap-ass absinthe until I looked it up, on suspicion that of course people would do that.

[Tzardok]

https://media.wizards.com/2017/podca...01_19_2017.mp3

It is actually something I did not believe until I was informed on these forums.

Two points: a) Correct me if I'm wrong, but this podcast is from 2017, from the 5E era. Are you sure that anything they say is at all relevant to 3.5? b) I'm not going to listen to one and a half hours of podcast just for one bit of trivia. Can you tell me roughly at what point of time they are talking about that?

Honestly? Not really seeing the distinction, especially if it actually makes running things more difficult and not less.

The real question is "what kind of material blocks the effect of an AMF?" IMO. This is not the same as some kind of burst type effect.

And yet, it explicitely works like one:

Antimagic Field
Abjuration
Level: Clr 8, Magic 6, Protection 6, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 10 ft.
Area: 10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you
Duration: 10 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: See text

Burst, Emanation, or Spread

Most spells that affect an area function as a burst, an emanation, or a spread. In each case, you select the spell’s point of origin and measure its effect from that point.

A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, even including creatures that you can’t see. It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst’s area defines how far from the point of origin the spell’s effect extends.

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.

Total Cover

If you don’t have line of effect to your target he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover.

Someone who is inside a creature's stomach has total cover against attacks from outside. He can't be targetted, and emanations or bursts can't get through to him. Now some emanations have descriptions according to which they can pierce barriers (detect evil, for example, is called out as being able to go through stone unless it is too thick, but not through lead), but antimagic field is not called out as working that way.

Why would an object inside someone be affected, but not a living being inside someone? And is it really about "someone"?

Because creatures and objects are different things by the rules. If you need an explanation, blame it on souls/animi/other animating forces. And it's not about "someone". It's about "some creature".

What if I wrap myself in living skin? Am I immune?

Depends. What kind of living skin do you imagine? Is it some creature that coils around you to strangle you? Then yes (assuming it completely covers you). Is it more some kind of symbiote, or skin that you magically treated to not die even though you skinned someone? Then it works more like equipment, and therefore is considered part of you, so no.

What if I swim along inside a gelatinout cube? I'm fine now?

You are not fine, you are inside an acidic cube of paralyzing ooze. But you won't be affected by outside effects. The cube grants you total cover. If you look at the way its Engulf ability works, you'll see that it doesn't even allow the engulfed creature to be attacked from the outside.

[No good @ names]

Specifically, by RAW, a glass pane, forcecage or wall.

You forgot culturally important sheets of lead, you ethnocentric bitch!!

[Menas]

Antimagic Cone. The beholder's central eye creates an area of antimagic, as in the antimagic field spell, in a 150-foot-cone. At the start of each of its turns, the beholder decides which way the cone faces and whether the cone is active. The area works against the beholder's own eye rays.

If you look up the antimagic field spell, the only difference in wording relative to the beholder's gaze is that the gaze is in the form of a 'cone' instead of a 'sphere'. So if you look up the spell, replace any mention of the word 'sphere' with 'cone' instead.

Here's the AMF spell description from https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/antimagic-field

'Spells: Any active spell or other magical effect on a creature or an object in the sphere is suppressed while the creature or object is in it.'

So if an object is in the gaze cone area, any spell or magical effect on it is suppressed. Period. All that matters is that it's within the area of effect. Nothing else matters.

[Tzardok]

Your link is broken. Also, it directs to D&D Beyond, to the D&D 5E Website. This comic still works by 3.5 rules, so your link is irrelevant. Look it up in the 3.5 SRD. Or read the relevant parts, which I quoted up there.

[KorvinStarmast]

I didn't know about its having been used in cheap-ass absinthe until I looked it up, on suspicion that of course people would do that.

"People" (the general case) find so many ways to be disappointing. Caveat emptor, I guess, for the next time I consider buying absynthe.

You forgot culturally important sheets of lead, you ethnocentric bitch!!

That got another laugh out of me. That's panel has aged well.

[Quizatzhaderac]

It's at times like this I'm tempted to start a webpage for D&D case law.

[bunsen_h]

Someone who is inside a creature's stomach has total cover against attacks from outside. He can't be targetted, and emanations or bursts can't get through to him. Now some emanations have descriptions according to which they can pierce barriers (detect evil, for example, is called out as being able to go through stone unless it is too thick, but not through lead), but antimagic field is not called out as working that way.

Because creatures and objects are different things by the rules. If you need an explanation, blame it on souls/animi/other animating forces. And it's not about "someone". It's about "some creature".

Let us suppose that a small lizard has been polymorphed into an allosaur. While in that form, it swallows a person whole. Then it is targeted with an AMF. Is the small lizard ripped apart? Does that depend on whether the person has yet died? Or if the person is actually a polymorphed butterfly?

[Tzardok]

Let us suppose that a small lizard has been polymorphed into an allosaur. While in that form, it swallows a person whole. Then it is targeted with an AMF. Is the small lizard ripped apart?

Presumably. At least, that's what seems logical based on the idea that polymorphing while inside a creature can ripp it apart. In both case it's "big thing inside small thing = chestburster special". The only difference is how that state came to be. Still, this is one of those cases where a GM needs to make a ruling. The lizard could also "flow" around the person, freeing him while remaning unharmed.

Does that depend on whether the person has yet died?

I would say no, unless the person has already been at least partly digested. But this falls again into stuff the rules remain silent, like what happens if a pregnant woman shapechanges.

Or if the person is actually a polymorphed butterfly?

Most polymorph spells end when the subject dies. Most polymorph spells don't change the subject's hp beyond changes to Con. As your polymorphed butterfly would have only a few hp, it's like to have already died and transformed back when it was swallowed. Nice try though.

[Aedilred]

Counterpoint.

An arguably even more relevant example.

Yes, despite being an extremely specific scenario, "dragon eats a member of the party polymorphed into a lizard" has in fact happened before.

[gbaji]

Oh... I get that the spell description says it emanates from a point (whether it's unidirectional, thus forming a sphere, or narrower and forms a cone is just an implementation detail). I'm just saying that, if I were designing the effect, it shouldn't work that way. It makes zero sense from any sort of magical model we might use to describe what is actually happening.

I'm just one of those strange world building kind of people who asks the question: "how does magic work?". Which leads to the next question: "How does a field that nullifies magic work?". I tend to go with a model that says that magic is some kind of energy that flows through all of reality, allowing anyone that can manipulate that energy to change the reality that it affects. An antimagic field, therefore, actually blocks the ability of any effect to manipulate that energy, thus preventing changes in the area. This neatly explains why both magic objects/spells don't work in an AMF *and* why magical effects (whether from an object or via spell cast) cannot target an object or area that is within an AMF.

To make this an emanated effect, you are assuming some energy is being actively propelled into the area, and then impacting or otherwise interacting with objects within, and then somehow affecting each object impacted with "something" that prevents magic from affecting them, or them creating magical effects. That's a vastly more complex model, and breaks down in some areas. Ok. What about just a spell effect? I have a protection from evil 10' radius up. Part of the area of that effect, intersects with an AMF. Does someone standing in the combiined area get the effect of the protection? Obviously, not. But... how does it not? There's nothing to hit with the emanation to prevent the otherwise intangible effect of the protection from evil spell. So is it there, but the person standing in that area just can't recieve the effect because it's in the AMF? We could model it that way, but it's clunky IMO. For esxample, what if the magic doesn't affect any person or object but just the area itself?

I get the game use reason for this. They want walls and floors to block the effect. But it has the unintended consequences of "something in your stomach isn't affected" problem. Or the "I hide behind a literal bedsheet, and can then use teleport or d-door to escape" (which then gets us into arguments over details like when cloth is "worn clothing" or not). We've created a more complex model that doesn't actually buy us anything other than to create more a complex and potentially exploitable implementation and use of the effect when playing.

Simple is better.

Now yes. That is how the rules are writtten. So, if we're following strict interpretation, and Calder swallowed Bloodfeast, then even though Bloodfeast might be entirely within the area of the AMF, because he's inside Calder and thus not in actual line of effect, he's not affected. Which works for Caulder, since the effect of bloodfeast becoming unpolymorphed would be problematic for him. But it also has the strange effect that someone like Haley, finding herself trapped in an AMF and fighting a dragon, could intentionally allow herself to be swallowed, so she could then pull out a d-door wand, and escape to an area outside the field. Which is.... strange to say the least. We had someone mention earlier the question of whether someone could d-door or teleport into an AMF. I immediately said "of course not!", because obviously magic should not work in an AMF, and teleportation is magic. But... Under the "the AMF emanates and affects objects/people in the area with something that prevents them from using or being affected by magic", that is actually a valid grey area question (nothing is inside the AMF until after it's teleported there, right?). So... what is obvious in one model, is not so obvious in another.

And yeah. I hold up a bedsheet, and now all my spell effects and magic items work. Or step behind a small panel (like in dressing rooms) and now I can use magic again. I get that if we're talking about things like a cone of cold, or some other very direct (this is actually impacting the surface of something, but with no actual mass). But for something like an AMF? I'd expect it to penetrate though objects and people in the area. Again. I suppose this depends on how you model magic. If magic is something external that affects things in the world, and you manipulate it to control those effects, then if magic is "blocked" in an area, it's blocked in that area. Only powerful objects that carrry magic within them (artifacts and deities) can work. I suppose if your model is that magic just generates from people and objects independently, then I suppose the AMF as written works. But that's a limited magic model IMO. It makes planes and dimensions where "magic works differently" difficult to model as well. If magic is always generated by (rather than merely manipulated by) all magic objects and people (when casting spells), then it becomes more difficult to model these other environmental effects as well.

But that's just me and how I like to view things. Again. Spell as written works the way it works. I just happen to think that's a dumb way for the effect to work, and absolutely would rule differently if running my own game.

[Menas]

Your link is broken. Also, it directs to D&D Beyond, to the D&D 5E Website. This comic still works by 3.5 rules, so your link is irrelevant. Look it up in the 3.5 SRD. Or read the relevant parts, which I quoted up there.

Link is no longer broken (a wandering colon decided to implant itself at the end of the hyperlink):

https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/antimagic-field

I'm aware that this comic is based on 3.5 rules. If you consider the other link irrelevant, fine, you're not the only person in this forum though, and I was using it as a frame of reference. Because if you look at the 3.5 description (link below), it's the same difference.

Link to the spell in 3.5: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm

'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.'

[Menas]

It's at times like this I'm tempted to start a webpage for D&D case law.

More power to you!

[Menas]

If we're looking for a practical example in the real world where a field affects an object that's inside of another object, you can think in terms of an EMF. All objects in the field are affected by the field.

Oh... I get that the spell description says it emanates from a point (whether it's unidirectional, thus forming a sphere, or narrower and forms a cone is just an implementation detail). I'm just saying that, if I were designing the effect, it shouldn't work that way. It makes zero sense from any sort of magical model we might use to describe what is actually happening.

I'm just one of those strange world building kind of people who asks the question: "how does magic work?". Which leads to the next question: "How does a field that nullifies magic work?". I tend to go with a model that says that magic is some kind of energy that flows through all of reality, allowing anyone that can manipulate that energy to change the reality that it affects. An antimagic field, therefore, actually blocks the ability of any effect to manipulate that energy, thus preventing changes in the area. This neatly explains why both magic objects/spells don't work in an AMF *and* why magical effects (whether from an object or via spell cast) cannot target an object or area that is within an AMF.

To make this an emanated effect, you are assuming some energy is being actively propelled into the area, and then impacting or otherwise interacting with objects within, and then somehow affecting each object impacted with "something" that prevents magic from affecting them, or them creating magical effects. That's a vastly more complex model, and breaks down in some areas. Ok. What about just a spell effect? I have a protection from evil 10' radius up. Part of the area of that effect, intersects with an AMF. Does someone standing in the combiined area get the effect of the protection? Obviously, not. But... how does it not? There's nothing to hit with the emanation to prevent the otherwise intangible effect of the protection from evil spell. So is it there, but the person standing in that area just can't recieve the effect because it's in the AMF? We could model it that way, but it's clunky IMO. For esxample, what if the magic doesn't affect any person or object but just the area itself?

I get the game use reason for this. They want walls and floors to block the effect. But it has the unintended consequences of "something in your stomach isn't affected" problem. Or the "I hide behind a literal bedsheet, and can then use teleport or d-door to escape" (which then gets us into arguments over details like when cloth is "worn clothing" or not). We've created a more complex model that doesn't actually buy us anything other than to create more a complex and potentially exploitable implementation and use of the effect when playing.

Simple is better.

Now yes. That is how the rules are writtten. So, if we're following strict interpretation, and Calder swallowed Bloodfeast, then even though Bloodfeast might be entirely within the area of the AMF, because he's inside Calder and thus not in actual line of effect, he's not affected. Which works for Caulder, since the effect of bloodfeast becoming unpolymorphed would be problematic for him. But it also has the strange effect that someone like Haley, finding herself trapped in an AMF and fighting a dragon, could intentionally allow herself to be swallowed, so she could then pull out a d-door wand, and escape to an area outside the field. Which is.... strange to say the least. We had someone mention earlier the question of whether someone could d-door or teleport into an AMF. I immediately said "of course not!", because obviously magic should not work in an AMF, and teleportation is magic. But... Under the "the AMF emanates and affects objects/people in the area with something that prevents them from using or being affected by magic", that is actually a valid grey area question (nothing is inside the AMF until after it's teleported there, right?). So... what is obvious in one model, is not so obvious in another.

And yeah. I hold up a bedsheet, and now all my spell effects and magic items work. Or step behind a small panel (like in dressing rooms) and now I can use magic again. I get that if we're talking about things like a cone of cold, or some other very direct (this is actually impacting the surface of something, but with no actual mass). But for something like an AMF? I'd expect it to penetrate though objects and people in the area. Again. I suppose this depends on how you model magic. If magic is something external that affects things in the world, and you manipulate it to control those effects, then if magic is "blocked" in an area, it's blocked in that area. Only powerful objects that carrry magic within them (artifacts and deities) can work. I suppose if your model is that magic just generates from people and objects independently, then I suppose the AMF as written works. But that's a limited magic model IMO. It makes planes and dimensions where "magic works differently" difficult to model as well. If magic is always generated by (rather than merely manipulated by) all magic objects and people (when casting spells), then it becomes more difficult to model these other environmental effects as well.

But that's just me and how I like to view things. Again. Spell as written works the way it works. I just happen to think that's a dumb way for the effect to work, and absolutely would rule differently if running my own game.

[Tzardok]

Link to the spell in 3.5: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm

'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.'

And yet, you are cutting out the part where it is described as an emanation, and ignoring the definition of emanation. Both of which I quoted before.
So again, the field suppresses magic effects in its area, but that area stops at barriers.

[brian 333]

If we're looking for a practical example in the real world where a field affects an object that's inside of another object, you can think in terms of an EMF. All objects in the field are affected by the field.

Except things in a Faraday Cage, which provides protection from EMF in distinct frequency bands, depending on the weave, materials, and volume of the cage. So, things within the 'cover' of the Faraday Cage are unaffected by external electromagnetic force, and if the point from which the EMF emanates is behind a Faraday Cage from the PoV of an object, that object is shadowed by the cage.

Exactly like the AMF description, except that more things affect the AMF than an EMF field.

[bunsen_h]

Presumably. At least, that's what seems logical based on the idea that polymorphing while inside a creature can ripp it apart. In both case it's "big thing inside small thing = chestburster special". The only difference is how that state came to be. Still, this is one of those cases where a GM needs to make a ruling. The lizard could also "flow" around the person, freeing him while remaning unharmed.

Back In The Day, I recall setting up a self-destruct system for a friend's dungeon. The magic user used the reversed form of Enlarge (MU 1) many times (via scrolls) to radically reduce the size of lots of large-ish rocks, then cast the spherical form of Wall of Force (MU 5) around them. When the reversed Enlarge spells wore off, the rocks would attempt to return to their own size, but would be constrained by the impenetrable Wall of Force. Lots and lots of pressure. Shortly before the Wall of Force was due to expire, the magic user got a gelatinous cube to surround it, then used a Sepia Snake Sigil (MU 3) to indefinitely time-stop the gelatinous cube. (SSS could be cast directly at a living creature and did not expire... seriously overpowered.) The idea was that when the Sepia Snake Sigil was dispelled, the Wall of Force would conclude its countdown, and on failing, there would be a kaboom when the highly-compressed rocks reverted to their normal size.

[gbaji]

Except things in a Faraday Cage, which provides protection from EMF in distinct frequency bands, depending on the weave, materials, and volume of the cage. So, things within the 'cover' of the Faraday Cage are unaffected by external electromagnetic force, and if the point from which the EMF emanates is behind a Faraday Cage from the PoV of an object, that object is shadowed by the cage.

Exactly like the AMF description, except that more things affect the AMF than an EMF field.

Right. But what if magic is the EMF and the AMF is the Faraday Cage (equivalent) in this model?

Imagine that magic effects of all kind require some sort of "wireless power" to operate. Block it, and the spell doesn't function, the magic ring is just a ring, etc. You create an area where the power is blocked, and everything within that area stops working, except those which generate their own power (which, in this model is artifacts and deities).

This is how I have always envisioned AMFS working. It's a field that blocks/interferes the normal "background magical field" that exists everywhere normally. Take it away, and there's no magic. Putting something inside a "doughnut hole" inside that area, is still not going to work, since magic simply doesn't exist in the entire area (more or less the same way that if I put a Faraday cage inside a Faraday cage, I still can't receive RF signals from outside the main cage into the smaller one inside).

And yes. I get that the actual spell descriptions for AMF don't reflect that. But they should. This is not a spell we're casting on every object in an area. It's a spell that affects the area itself, and prevents magic from working within that area. There is no saving throw for objects or people in the area, no spell resistance that can prevent the AMF from working, etc, like we might expect if this was a spell effect, traveling along line of sight, and then hitting things and affecting them in some way. So the fact that the spell description actually includes language that is normally used for spells actually directly affecting things (and normally themselves being resistable or subject to saves) just seems strange to me. The AMF doesn't affect the objects or people in the area, it affects magic in the area. The spells and magic objects inside the area are still active and operating, but there is no magic to allow their effects to actually... you know...take effect. The wheels are spinning, but there is no road to drive on. The speaker is still vibrating, but we've put it in a vaccum, so no sound is heard. This model also fits the "spell effects continue to expend duration, but have no effect while in the AMF" bits.

Obviously, I'm talking about how I model AMFs in a game. If we're following strict rules, they technically work differently. I just find that that "different yet technically correct" way of workinng is silly and strange and subject to odd and nonsensical results.

[Menas]

And yet, you are cutting out the part where it is described as an emanation, and ignoring the definition of emanation. Both of which I quoted before.
So again, the field suppresses magic effects in its area, but that area stops at barriers.

I'm not ignoring it, we don't agree on the definitions.

I see barrier as outer boundary of the effect. For this spell emanation simply defines the point from which the area of effect is determined.

[JonahFalcon]

You forgot culturally important sheets of lead, you ethnocentric bitch!!

Stop suppressing our rupture, you electroresistive niche!

[brian 333]

Right. But what if magic is the EMF and the AMF is the Faraday Cage (equivalent) in this model?

Imagine that magic effects of all kind require some sort of "wireless power" to operate. Block it, and the spell doesn't function, the magic ring is just a ring, etc. You create an area where the power is blocked, and everything within that area stops working, except those which generate their own power (which, in this model is artifacts and deities).

This is how I have always envisioned AMFS working. It's a field that blocks/interferes the normal "background magical field" that exists everywhere normally. Take it away, and there's no magic. Putting something inside a "doughnut hole" inside that area, is still not going to work, since magic simply doesn't exist in the entire area (more or less the same way that if I put a Faraday cage inside a Faraday cage, I still can't receive RF signals from outside the main cage into the smaller one inside).

And yes. I get that the actual spell descriptions for AMF don't reflect that. But they should. This is not a spell we're casting on every object in an area. It's a spell that affects the area itself, and prevents magic from working within that area. There is no saving throw for objects or people in the area, no spell resistance that can prevent the AMF from working, etc, like we might expect if this was a spell effect, traveling along line of sight, and then hitting things and affecting them in some way. So the fact that the spell description actually includes language that is normally used for spells actually directly affecting things (and normally themselves being resistable or subject to saves) just seems strange to me. The AMF doesn't affect the objects or people in the area, it affects magic in the area. The spells and magic objects inside the area are still active and operating, but there is no magic to allow their effects to actually... you know...take effect. The wheels are spinning, but there is no road to drive on. The speaker is still vibrating, but we've put it in a vaccum, so no sound is heard. This model also fits the "spell effects continue to expend duration, but have no effect while in the AMF" bits.

Obviously, I'm talking about how I model AMFs in a game. If we're following strict rules, they technically work differently. I just find that that "different yet technically correct" way of workinng is silly and strange and subject to odd and nonsensical results.

As DM, you can do that. A common interpretation of the rules is only necessary in tournament play and in games with players rotating through DMs. Both, for me, were many years ago, before THAC0 was a thing. I only care now because I wish to participate in these discussions, and if we are to deduce what is possible or probable, we have to approach that from a shared interpretation of the rules.

[KorvinStarmast]

Except things in a Faraday Cage,
.

And in OotSworld, we now have a Calder Cage.

[Menas]

Except things in a Faraday Cage, which provides protection from EMF in distinct frequency bands, depending on the weave, materials, and volume of the cage. So, things within the 'cover' of the Faraday Cage are unaffected by external electromagnetic force, and if the point from which the EMF emanates is behind a Faraday Cage from the PoV of an object, that object is shadowed by the cage.

Exactly like the AMF description, except that more things affect the AMF than an EMF field.

For me it's the opposite of what you described. I used the EMF as an analogy of the AMF, if people want to think of something in the real world that matches the description of an AMF in D&D, as far as thinking in terms of what a 'field' means.

However, there is no equivalent in D&D for a Faraday Cage that would act in an AMF in the same way that a Faraday Cage does in an EMF. The spell describes everything in the field as being affected, until you reach the outer boundary of the area of effect (field) of the spell, no exceptions.

[KorvinStarmast]

For me it's the opposite of what you described. I used the EMF as an analogy of the AMF, if people want to think of something in the real world that matches the description of an AMF in D&D, as far as thinking in terms of what a 'field' means.

However, there is no equivalent in D&D for a Faraday Cage that would act in an AMF in the same way that a Faraday Cage does in an EMF. The spell describes everything in the field as being affected, until you reach the outer boundary of the area of effect (field) of the spell, no exceptions.

Not sure how 3.5 treats them, but artifacts are not impacted by AMF in 5e. I think it's the same in 3.5.

Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this.

[brian 333]

For me it's the opposite of what you described. I used the EMF as an analogy of the AMF, if people want to think of something in the real world that matches the description of an AMF in D&D, as far as thinking in terms of what a 'field' means.

However, there is no equivalent in D&D for a Faraday Cage that would act in an AMF in the same way that a Faraday Cage does in an EMF. The spell describes everything in the field as being affected, until you reach the outer boundary of the area of effect (field) of the spell, no exceptions.

Yes, there are exceptions, the primary one being cover. Anything with 100% cover is not affected by the AMF, as described in the explanation section of spellcasting under Emanations.

The flashlight example is a good model for how all emanation spells work. Objects in the cone are affected, while objects in the shadows are not.

You are using the wrong model. You are drawing the outline of the theoretical area of effect and declaring everything within it as affected. Instead, you should be able to draw an uninterrupted ray from the point of origin to the object to determine if it is affected. If at least part of the creature or object can be illuminated by this ray, even so little as the brim of its hat, that creature or object is affected by the antimagic. If it cannot be so illuminated, it is not affected. And in Sage Advice, it was further clarified that even transparent objects and fields are considered to block the emanation from an AMF.

For simplicity, your model works. And until a few weeks ago when I was researching this exact topic for another thread on this forum, it was the model I used. Learning that I have been wrong for 46 years is not pleasant, but it is exciting to realize that I still have much to learn!

[gbaji]

The flashlight example is a good model for how all emanation spells work. Objects in the cone are affected, while objects in the shadows are not.

And the flashlight model is also very good for all spell effects in which we are directly causing some effect to "targets struck" by the spell effect itself. The burst and emanation models described in the rules work well for this, which is why they are in the rules.

IMO, these models do not well describe what should be happening with an AMF though.

You are using the wrong model. You are drawing the outline of the theoretical area of effect and declaring everything within it as affected. Instead, you should be able to draw an uninterrupted ray from the point of origin to the object to determine if it is affected. If at least part of the creature or object can be illuminated by this ray, even so little as the brim of its hat, that creature or object is affected by the antimagic. If it cannot be so illuminated, it is not affected. And in Sage Advice, it was further clarified that even transparent objects and fields are considered to block the emanation from an AMF.

Or... the rules as written are using the wrong model.

For simplicity, your model works. And until a few weeks ago when I was researching this exact topic for another thread on this forum, it was the model I used. Learning that I have been wrong for 46 years is not pleasant, but it is exciting to realize that I still have much to learn!

I would argue that if rules written down by someone conflict with how you have thought something should work for 46 years, your first thought should be to assume that the person writing the rules didn't consider this one case and thus reject a strict use of the rules.

The rules for emanation effects were clearly written to simplify and standardize the spell mechanics in the game. When playing the game, you will encounter things that don't quite fit the standard rules perfectly. That's exactly when you should stop, consider the rule, and then make a ruling yourself.

Simple thought experiment: If you just read the spell description for AMF and *didn't* read the "emanation" word in the Area line, and *didn't* go and read how emanations work in the "Aiming a Spell" section of the "Spell Descriptions" chapter of the rules, how would you think the AMF area should be resolved?

[danielxcutter]

Why would you assume your interpretation would be right without reading the rules?

[jokem]

But do they have Baleful Polymorph to return him to a more portable size? Or is your plan to leave full-sized Bloodfeast in this room permanently?

Due to the urgency of dealing with a critically dangerous opponent (the dragon) my plan was to deal with that by whatever means and take care of the logistical problems afterward.

[Doug Lampert]

Why would you assume your interpretation would be right without reading the rules?

And what about Anti-magic Field makes it obviously penetrate anything when almost nothing else does?

The rules are clear, and consistent, and there's nothing I see in the rules or fluff that makes it obvious that the spell should hit everything within range regardless of cover. Why does he think that this spell penetrates absolutely everything but fireball doesn't?

And the "actual" field under discussion here a cone projected by an eye-thingy's big central eye. Why would anyone's default assumption be that a cone from the eye can penatrate an opaque barrier? Eye's and not going through barriers strikes me as the obvious intuitive way for it to work.