. . . So you can cast spells (on yourself) no problem. You can't cast spells through it . . .
Why not? Nothing about the spell description suggests that spells cannot be cast through the aura. If you choose not to be in the aura, then an enemy that's 15 feet away from you can hit you with a Magic Missile spell. They could even hit you with a Fireball spell -- it's just that the fireball would not be able to spread out very far. Likewise, that enemy that is 15 feet in front of you can target an ally that's standing 15 feet behind you with either of these spells. Nothing about the aura creates a problem for the clear path rule for spellcasting.
. . . So you can cast spells (on yourself) no problem. You can't cast spells through it . . .
Why not? Nothing about the spell description suggests that spells cannot be cast through the aura. If you choose not to be in the aura, then an enemy that's 15 feet away from you can hit you with a Magic Missile spell. They could even hit you with a Fireball spell -- it's just that the fireball would not be able to spread out very far. Likewise, that enemy that is 15 feet in front of you can target an ally that's standing 15 feet behind you with either of these spells. Nothing about the aura creates a problem for the clear path rule for spellcasting.
The spell descriptions starts : aura of antimagic, Reads like a big stopper of spells.
. . . So you can cast spells (on yourself) no problem. You can't cast spells through it . . .
Why not? Nothing about the spell description suggests that spells cannot be cast through the aura. If you choose not to be in the aura, then an enemy that's 15 feet away from you can hit you with a Magic Missile spell. They could even hit you with a Fireball spell -- it's just that the fireball would not be able to spread out very far. Likewise, that enemy that is 15 feet in front of you can target an ally that's standing 15 feet behind you with either of these spells. Nothing about the aura creates a problem for the clear path rule for spellcasting.
If the spell would travel through the anti-magic, it should get destroyed by the antimagic. Fireball and magic missile travel in a relatively straight line.
You might be able to make an argument for spells that simply manifest at the targeted point, and maybe you win that argument with your DM. I wouldn't count on it. (Note: there's probably more leeway here for if you can trace a path around the antimagic field. But if it has to go through the antimagic field, that's probably not going to fly).
Here's the text that thwarts you: "Ongoing spells, except those cast by an Artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the area. While an effect is suppressed, it doesn't function, but the time it spends suppressed counts against its duration."
Now, an instantaneous spell is only active for an instant. The moment it passes into the sphere, it gets suppressed, and then its duration expires and so it does nothing. I suppose if you cast something like charm person on someone opposite the field, and the field went down before the charm person duration expired, it would get the rest of its remaining duration.
... Actually, Antimagic Field might be a way to actually do fun stuff with timestop...
You might be able to make an argument for spells that simply manifest at the targeted point, and maybe you win that argument with your DM.
Every spell in the game works this way.
Range
A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate . . .
This applies even to spells such as Magic Missile which contain flavor text to make it appear as if something is shooting out from the spellcaster and moves towards the target. Mechanically, that is actually not happening. Mechanically, the effect of the Magic Missile spell originates at the target creature's location.
Next, the Clear Path rule for spellcasting:
A Clear Path to the Target. To target something with a spell, a caster must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind Total Cover.
This isn't any sort of effect travelling anywhere. This is just having a path between the spellcaster and the location where the spell effect will originate. This requirement can be blocked by Total Cover. Nothing about an AoE aura suggests (explicitly or implicitly) that it creates Total Cover.
Mechanically, the effect of the Magic Missile spell originates at the target creature's location.
Say what? We must be reading different languages. I am still reading in the 2024 PHB that it originates from the spellcaster. In the 70s it came from the spellcaster, when did it originate from the target?
I'm not sure exactly how that particular spell has evolved over time through the various versions of the game, but in 5e2014 and in 5e2024 the spell has a distance range. If the spell had a range of "self" instead then the spell effect would be originating from the spellcaster. But it doesn't, so it doesn't. It's cast by the spellcaster along a clear path to the target (like all spells are), but the spell effect originates at the target's location as per the general rules for spellcasting, some of which I quoted in my previous post.
If the spell had a range of "self" instead then the spell effect would be originating from the spellcaster.
If the range was self, MM can never hit a target. The range is how far away from the originator can the missile travel.
It's cast by the spellcaster along a clear path to the target (like all spells are),
I agree. The path needs an origin and a destination. Ergo it originates from the spell caster and travels though a path (can't pass through antimagic aura/field)
but the spell effect originates at the target's location as per the general rules for spellcasting, some of which I quoted in my previous post.
Back to speaking a different language and playing a different game. The 2024 PHB has the origination of MM from the spell caster.
If the spell had a range of "self" instead then the spell effect would be originating from the spellcaster.
If the range was self, MM can never hit a target. The range is how far away from the originator can the missile travel.
It's cast by the spellcaster along a clear path to the target (like all spells are),
I agree. The path needs an origin and a destination. Ergo it originates from the spell caster and travels though a path (can't pass through antimagic aura/field)
but the spell effect originates at the target's location as per the general rules for spellcasting, some of which I quoted in my previous post.
Back to speaking a different language and playing a different game. The 2024 PHB has the origination of MM from the spell caster.
You might be able to make an argument for spells that simply manifest at the targeted point, and maybe you win that argument with your DM.
Every spell in the game works this way.
Range
A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate . . .
This applies even to spells such as Magic Missile which contain flavor text to make it appear as if something is shooting out from the spellcaster and moves towards the target. Mechanically, that is actually not happening. Mechanically, the effect of the Magic Missile spell originates at the target creature's location.
Next, the Clear Path rule for spellcasting:
A Clear Path to the Target. To target something with a spell, a caster must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind Total Cover.
This isn't any sort of effect travelling anywhere. This is just having a path between the spellcaster and the location where the spell effect will originate. This requirement can be blocked by Total Cover. Nothing about an AoE aura suggests (explicitly or implicitly) that it creates Total Cover.
The spell's effect originates from the target. But the spell itself originates from the caster and travels to the target. The effect of magic missile is the damage. The darts still appear near the caster and travel.
(A fireball's effect is a sphere of fire that deals damage. A glowing ember still shoots out from the caster and travels to the center of the detonation).
You have to have a clear path because spells travel in straight lines.
The spell's effect originates from the target. But the spell itself originates from the caster and travels to the target.
It actually doesn't though and in this exact scenario this detail actually matters.
For convenience, in spellcasting discussions we will often describe the process as you are describing it here, usually by using air quotes around the word "travels", like this:
-- The spell is cast by the spellcaster at the spellcaster's location and then it "travels" along a clear path to the target where the spell effect originates.
But that's all that it is, a convenient description. An easy way for us to picture in our minds the mechanics of spellcasting. But when you really read the rules closely, this never actually happens.
The 2014 rules attempted to give an explanation for what actually happens under the hood with this spellcasting process by describing the concept of The Weave of Magic.
The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect.
or
access to the Weave is mediated by divine power
Whenever a magic effect is created, the threads of the Weave intertwine, twist, and fold to make the effect possible. When characters use divination spells such as detect magic or identify, they glimpse the Weave. A spell such as dispel magic smooths the Weave. Spells such as antimagic field rearrange the Weave so that magic flows around, rather than through, the area affected by the spell.
So basically, the spellcaster interfaces with this Weave at his own location while casting the spell and this causes the desired effect to originate at the desired location. There is nothing magical that is physically moving from the spellcaster to the target location when the spell is cast. Nothing related to the spell actually exists at all until it originates at the point of origin.
In 2024, such explanations regarding the Weave were removed from the core rulebooks since this is really a setting-specific explanation given for the Forgotten Realms setting. Other settings will have different explanations for how this works. But in any case, the actual mechanics that are given in the core books intentionally leave this detail open for such explanations by NOT stating that something specific is "travelling" from the spellcaster to the target during the spellcasting.
Note that the Antimagic Field spell was listed there as a specific example of something that happens to the Weave so that magic "flows around" it. This means that magic cannot exist within the Field, nor can a spellcaster initiate the spellcasting process from within the Field. But it explicitly refutes the idea that a creature located behind the Field cannot be targeted. Remember, the Field does not provide Total Cover to such a creature so the Clear Path to that creature is not impacted by the Field.
The effect of magic missile is the damage. The darts still appear near the caster and travel.
This is not correct for a couple of reasons. First, the effect of the Magic Missile spell is not just the damage. It's everything that is described within the effect block of the spell description.
Effects
The effects of a spell are detailed after its duration entry. Those details present exactly what the spell does,
Furthermore, there is actually nothing in the spell description for the Magic Missile spell which states that the darts appear near the caster at all.
You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart strikes a creature of your choice that you can see within range . . . you can direct them to hit one creature or several.
Now, even if it did say that the darts are shooting out from the spellcaster, mechanically that would basically be flavor text that describes what the effect looks like. Mechanically, the spell effect always originates at the point of origin for the spell -- for single target spells with a distance range, that point of origin is always at the target's location. I can't think of any exceptions to that.
(A fireball's effect is a sphere of fire that deals damage. A glowing ember still shoots out from the caster and travels to the center of the detonation).
Here is the relevant information about the Fireball spell:
A bright streak flashes from you to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into a fiery explosion.
This bright streak is basically flavor-text for this spell. It's something that creatures in the game world would see as part of the effect of the spell, but that spell effect actually originates at "a point you choose within range" as per the general rules for spell ranges that has been quoted a couple of times already.
So, if the caster of the Antimagic Field spell chose the donut-shaped option for the field, then a spellcaster outside of the field could still drop a Fireball such that it originates inside of that donut area. In that case, nearby creatures would not see a portion of the bright streak since that portion of the spell effect would be suppressed by the Field and likewise the Fireball would be smaller than usual.
You have to have a clear path because spells travel in straight lines.
As already explained, this is actually not true. The rules do not say this.
I do agree that the best interpretation of a "clear path" is that it is a straight-line path. But the rule only requires that such a path exists unimpeded by total cover. That's all.
Again, for most spellcasting discussions your above explanation adequately describes a certain concept and is fine for those purposes. For example, when someone posts a question asking if they can target a creature that they can clearly see that is on the other side of a translucent Wall of Force with their Magic Missile spell, the common answer given would be something like: "No, that creature cannot be targeted because the Wall of Force provides Total Cover to that creature and when the spell is cast it "travels" (in air-quotes) "from" (in air-quotes) the spellcaster "to" (in air-quotes) the target in a straight line "along" (in air-quotes) a clear path -- Total Cover impedes that clear path". Such an explanation is fine for that discussion because everyone sort of knows what you are talking about, and the details don't really matter in that case.
In this particular case when discussing the Antimagic Field, this detail very much does matter so we really need to carefully read what the rules actually say and be really precise with our explanations.
In fact, nothing related to the spellcasting actually travels anywhere prior to the spell effect erupting into existence at the point of origin. if two creatures are standing on opposite sides of an Antimagic Field, both located outside of the Field, neither creature enjoys the benefits of Total Cover from the other and therefore the Clear Path requirement is met when attempting to target the other creature with a spell. Nothing in the general rules for spellcasting prevents this and nothing in the description of the Antimagic Field spell prevents this either.
The spell's effect originates from the target. But the spell itself originates from the caster and travels to the target.
It actually doesn't though and in this exact scenario this detail actually matters.
For convenience, in spellcasting discussions we will often describe the process as you are describing it here, usually by using air quotes around the word "travels", like this:
-- The spell is cast by the spellcaster at the spellcaster's location and then it "travels" along a clear path to the target where the spell effect originates.
But that's all that it is, a convenient description. An easy way for us to picture in our minds the mechanics of spellcasting. But when you really read the rules closely, this never actually happens.
The 2014 rules attempted to give an explanation for what actually happens under the hood with this spellcasting process by describing the concept of The Weave of Magic.
The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect.
or
access to the Weave is mediated by divine power
Whenever a magic effect is created, the threads of the Weave intertwine, twist, and fold to make the effect possible. When characters use divination spells such as detect magic or identify, they glimpse the Weave. A spell such as dispel magic smooths the Weave. Spells such as antimagic field rearrange the Weave so that magic flows around, rather than through, the area affected by the spell.
So basically, the spellcaster interfaces with this Weave at his own location while casting the spell and this causes the desired effect to originate at the desired location. There is nothing magical that is physically moving from the spellcaster to the target location when the spell is cast. Nothing related to the spell actually exists at all until it originates at the point of origin.
In 2024, such explanations regarding the Weave were removed from the core rulebooks since this is really a setting-specific explanation given for the Forgotten Realms setting. Other settings will have different explanations for how this works. But in any case, the actual mechanics that are given in the core books intentionally leave this detail open for such explanations by NOT stating that something specific is "travelling" from the spellcaster to the target during the spellcasting.
Note that the Antimagic Field spell was listed there as a specific example of something that happens to the Weave so that magic "flows around" it. This means that magic cannot exist within the Field, nor can a spellcaster initiate the spellcasting process from within the Field. But it explicitly refutes the idea that a creature located behind the Field cannot be targeted. Remember, the Field does not provide Total Cover to such a creature so the Clear Path to that creature is not impacted by the Field.
The effect of magic missile is the damage. The darts still appear near the caster and travel.
This is not correct for a couple of reasons. First, the effect of the Magic Missile spell is not just the damage. It's everything that is described within the effect block of the spell description.
Effects
The effects of a spell are detailed after its duration entry. Those details present exactly what the spell does,
Furthermore, there is actually nothing in the spell description for the Magic Missile spell which states that the darts appear near the caster at all.
You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart strikes a creature of your choice that you can see within range . . . you can direct them to hit one creature or several.
Now, even if it did say that the darts are shooting out from the spellcaster, mechanically that would basically be flavor text that describes what the effect looks like. Mechanically, the spell effect always originates at the point of origin for the spell -- for single target spells with a distance range, that point of origin is always at the target's location. I can't think of any exceptions to that.
(A fireball's effect is a sphere of fire that deals damage. A glowing ember still shoots out from the caster and travels to the center of the detonation).
Here is the relevant information about the Fireball spell:
A bright streak flashes from you to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into a fiery explosion.
This bright streak is basically flavor-text for this spell. It's something that creatures in the game world would see as part of the effect of the spell, but that spell effect actually originates at "a point you choose within range" as per the general rules for spell ranges that has been quoted a couple of times already.
So, if the caster of the Antimagic Field spell chose the donut-shaped option for the field, then a spellcaster outside of the field could still drop a Fireball such that it originates inside of that donut area. In that case, nearby creatures would not see a portion of the bright streak since that portion of the spell effect would be suppressed by the Field and likewise the Fireball would be smaller than usual.
You have to have a clear path because spells travel in straight lines.
As already explained, this is actually not true. The rules do not say this.
I do agree that the best interpretation of a "clear path" is that it is a straight-line path. But the rule only requires that such a path exists unimpeded by total cover. That's all.
Again, for most spellcasting discussions your above explanation adequately describes a certain concept and is fine for those purposes. For example, when someone posts a question asking if they can target a creature that they can clearly see that is on the other side of a translucent Wall of Force with their Magic Missile spell, the common answer given would be something like: "No, that creature cannot be targeted because the Wall of Force provides Total Cover to that creature and when the spell is cast it "travels" (in air-quotes) "from" (in air-quotes) the spellcaster "to" (in air-quotes) the target in a straight line "along" (in air-quotes) a clear path -- Total Cover impedes that clear path". Such an explanation is fine for that discussion because everyone sort of knows what you are talking about, and the details don't really matter in that case.
In this particular case when discussing the Antimagic Field, this detail very much does matter so we really need to carefully read what the rules actually say and be really precise with our explanations.
In fact, nothing related to the spellcasting actually travels anywhere prior to the spell effect erupting into existence at the point of origin. if two creatures are standing on opposite sides of an Antimagic Field, both located outside of the Field, neither creature enjoys the benefits of Total Cover from the other and therefore the Clear Path requirement is met when attempting to target the other creature with a spell. Nothing in the general rules for spellcasting prevents this and nothing in the description of the Antimagic Field spell prevents this either.
I would say the rules are ambiguous here rather than clear RAW.
The fireball spell clearly thinks the spell originates from the caster and travels to the point of impact/explosion.
There is decades of history behind magic missile that says the missiles appear by the caster and travel to hit their targets. There is no indication this was intended to be changed. (Contrast with fireball, where there was a deliberate intention between 2nd and 3e to change it from 33,000 cu. ft. of flame that expanded from the point of origin to a fixed radius sphere).
And Wall of Force doesn't block line of sight. It's invisible. Rather, nothing can physically pass the wall of force. (And wall of force is very specific that only physical passage is blocked). But if you want to cast charm person across it - go right ahead. You can see the creature on the other side. Charm Person doesn't travel physically. (Similarly, a window doesn't block line of sight.) Similarly, you can cast an illusion across a wall of force, or bless creatures opposite a wall of force. No physical thing needs to cross the barrier for any of these.
So in your interpretation, you can cast fireball through a wall of force. I don't think you can. I think the wall of force blocks the path of the spell, because the spell streaks from the caster to the target point as a magical physical object (it's an explosion of magical flame, which has always been an independent physical object, not just a consequence of a chemical reaction). Similarly, Wall of Force stops magic missile darts (which are force damage, so magical physical objects).
On the other hand, an antimagic field blocks the passage of all magic. That means anything cast within the donut cannot choose targets outside the donut. (To go back to the weave example from 2014, you can manipulate the weave, but the antimagic field smooths it all away when you try to manipulate the weave beyond your donut hole. The rest of the weave outside your bubble is inaccessible to you).
I don't know a single DM who would let you play antimagic field the way you're suggesting. (Or Wall of Force for that matter).
The fireball spell clearly thinks the spell originates from the caster and travels to the point of impact/explosion.
The spell effect that is created by this spell does look like this to the nearby in-world creatures. That's the effect that is being created. But the spell effect actually originates at its point of origin.
And Wall of Force doesn't block line of sight. It's invisible. Rather, nothing can physically pass the wall of force. (And wall of force is very specific that only physical passage is blocked). But if you want to cast charm person across it - go right ahead. You can see the creature on the other side. Charm Person doesn't travel physically. (Similarly, a window doesn't block line of sight.) Similarly, you can cast an illusion across a wall of force, or bless creatures opposite a wall of force. No physical thing needs to cross the barrier for any of these.
So in your interpretation, you can cast fireball through a wall of force. I don't think you can. I think the wall of force blocks the path of the spell, because the spell streaks from the caster to the target point as a magical physical object (it's an explosion of magical flame, which has always been an independent physical object, not just a consequence of a chemical reaction). Similarly, Wall of Force stops magic missile darts (which are force damage, so magical physical objects).
Apologies if my Wall of Force example was unclear. We risk straying off-topic if we go too far down that line of discussion, but my main point for using that example was just to note that it's often fine in most spellcasting discussions to use the common (but technically incorrect) explanation that the spell "travels" from the spellcaster to the target. In discussions such as the Wall of Force discussion, those technicalities don't really matter -- people just sort of know what you mean as soon as you bring up the Clear Path rule, regardless of how that rule is described. I've actually used that verbiage myself many times in various threads to describe the Clear Path concept. But in our discussion here, these details do matter.
But, while we are here, I really do have to correct several of your above statements because they are pretty alarming . . .
Yes, it's correct that Wall of Force does not block Line of Sight. That was the point of the example. The Clear Path rule does not actually care about Line of Sight. In only cares about whether or not there is a Clear Path. Because the Wall of Force provides Total Cover (confirmed by the developers of the game), it DOES block your ability to cast ALL spells that would attempt to directly target that creature on the other side of the wall. This means NO Charm Person. NO illusion spells (like Major Image). NO bless spell. Also NO Fireball spell. NO Magic Missile spell. The Clear Path rule prevents all of these.
The reason why all of the above spells are blocked by the Wall of Force is because all of those spells have distance ranges so the point of origin for the spell's effect is inaccessible. If instead you are casting some sort of spell with a range of "Self" then you might be able to do what you are trying to do regardless of the existence of the Wall of Force. Some divination spells work like that, for example.
You keep using words like "travel" to describe spells like Charm Person. There is no traveling whatsoever. That's the entire point of the example. The Clear Path rule prevents targeting a creature that has Total Cover, but not because the spell is somehow attempting to travel to the target. It's just because there is no Clear Path if there is Total Cover. The rules provide no further explanation. On the other hand, the Antimagic Field does not prevent the casting of Charm Person onto a target that is behind the Field . . . precisely because there is no "traveling" involved in the spellcasting process. Nothing is traveling through the Field AND the Field also does not provide Total Cover, therefore, targeting that creature with a Charm Person spell is possible in that case.
That means anything cast within the donut cannot choose targets outside the donut. (To go back to the weave example from 2014, you can manipulate the weave, but the antimagic field smooths it all away when you try to manipulate the weave beyond your donut hole. The rest of the weave outside your bubble is inaccessible to you).
This exact scenario is perhaps open to interpretation, but I don't believe that there is any reason to assume that the 2014 example about when the Antimagic Field will "rearrange the Weave so that magic flows around, rather than through, the area affected by the spell" has anything to do with Material Plane geography. Just because you are located within the 3D donut doesn't necessarily mean that the Weave cannot be rearranged in such a way that the magic flows "around" the affected area to the area outside of it.
On the other hand, an antimagic field blocks the passage of all magic.
Let's look at what the spell actually says:
The first thing to note is that even under your interpretation the spell would merely be "suppressed" while it "travels" through the field before successfully targeting the creature behind the field:
Ongoing spells, except those cast by an Artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the area. While an effect is suppressed, it doesn’t function, but the time it spends suppressed counts against its duration.
But since that's not what actually happens during the spellcasting process, let's look at the rest of the spell:
An aura of antimagic surrounds you in 10-foot Emanation. No one can cast spells, take Magic actions, or create other magical effects inside the aura, and those things can’t target or otherwise affect anything inside it. Magical properties of magic items don’t work inside the aura or on anything inside it.
Areas of effect created by spells or other magic can’t extend into the aura, and no one can teleport into or out of it or use planar travel there. Portals close temporarily while in the aura.
In summary:
-- Ongoing spells are suppressed while in the area.
-- Cannot cast spells from inside the area.
-- Cannot take Magic actions inside the area.
-- Cannot create other magical effects inside the area.
-- Spells cannot target/affect anything that's inside the area.
-- Magic actions cannot target/affect anything that's inside the area.
-- Other magical effects cannot target/affect anything that's inside the area.
-- Some details about magic items, irrelevant to this discussion.
-- AoE effects cannot extend into the area.
-- Some teleportation details, irrelevant to this discussion.
That's it. That's all that the spell says that it does. This does NOT support the claim that the Field "blocks the passage of all magic". Nothing in the spell description matches up with that claim.
Furthermore, as mentioned several times now, when a spell is cast by a spellcaster that targets a nearby creature, there is NO passage of any magic happening through that space. The magic does not exist until the spell effect originates.
The only rule that could interrupt a spell that relates to something existing "between" the spellcaster and the target is the Clear Path rule which simply states that the target cannot be behind Total Cover when the spell is cast. The Anitmagic Field does not provide Total Cover.
So you're saying that a closed window blocks charm person or major image? Nonsense.
And that magic can 'travel' through an anti-magic field but not through a wall of force is also silly. Wall of Force specifically says it blocks physical passage. A mental attack is not physical, ergo, it's not blocked. I'd love to see the developer clarification, but, well, the developers have been wrong before (and even disagreed with each other). I'm going to trust the text here over what the developers say - if it's not physical in some sense, it goes right through a wall of force, because wall of force only says it blocks physical passage.
And if all magic works as you say, then a fireball can be cast through wall of force, because it doesn't travel through the wall of force. It simply originates on the other side. That's silly, but that's what you're arguing. A Wall of Force does not provide total cover, nor does it say it does, because total cover requires that the creature is hidden from view. Since the Wall of Force is invisible, it hides nothing from view. Therefore, you can see (and target) things on the other side. The only thing Wall of Force explicitly prevents is physical traversal of the Wall of Force. ie, you can see and even target a creature on the other side of a wall of force with a bow shot, but the arrow just bounces off the wall of force. And since you're arguing magic just originates at the target point, there's nothing to even cross the wall, it just happens on the other side.
To make this sillier, even if we grant both your contradictory assertions (you can't cast any spell through a wall of force because somehow an invisible barrier blocks line of sight), if you had an arcane eyes on the other side of the wall of force, now you're saying you could cast fireball through it (you have unobstructed line of sight via the eye), because the fireball doesn't travel from you, it just appears at the target point. In fact, with an arcane eye you could cast fireball at places where there were opaque physical walls between you and the target location, so long as it was within 150'.
Your assumptions and claims make no sense at any level.
Strict RAW, a wall of force only blocks physical passage and does not block line of sight (because invisible means you can see through it perfectly). If the designers wanted wall of force to stop spells from casting through it via seeing the target, they should have explicitly said so in the Wall of Force description. They can say it provides Total Cover, but the spell description does not say that, so it doesn't. (And that should really be the end of discussion on that point.) And as they didn't (and they've had two bites of the apple at this point), they're simply wrong if they say otherwise.
(You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, here. An invisible intervening object is only a problem if something has to physically travel through that space. At what level does it make sense that a pane of glass stops a charm person spell, but an intervening anti-magic field doesn't? The pane of glass blocking not only assumes the spell travels along the path, but does so physically in a way that is stopped by physical objects. So when you tell me it doesn't travel, and then invoke that... that doesn't even begin to make sense. It's stupid at a level so fundamental that no table would actually play that way).
BTW, Crawford has said Sacred Flame can be cast on creatures with Total Cover (ie, even legitimately can't see), and that's pretty obviously wrong (the spell requires you see the target). And not just once, but multiple times. So the designer track record on this is not great.
Addendums:
"The first thing to note is that even under your interpretation the spell would merely be "suppressed" while it "travels" through the field before successfully targeting the creature behind the field:"
No, suppressed means it stops traveling entirely. It just sits there at the edge of the antimagic field in abeyance until its duration runs out or the AMF goes down.
"it DOES block your ability to cast ALL spells that would attempt to directly target that creature on the other side of the wall. This means NO Charm Person. NO illusion spells (like Major Image)."
For the record, Major Image does not target any creatures. (And you should be able to not only cast Major Image across Wall of Force, but cast it on your side and have it move through a wall of force, because it is not physical, and thus Wall of Force does not block its passage.)
For what its worth, I think a key point of contention here is 'what qualifies as an obstacle'. Wall of Force specifically says it blocks physical passage. Major illusion and charm person aren't physically passing the barrier, so Wall of Force isn't an obstacle to them, and so creatures or spaces on the other side do not have total cover for them.
Consider a bow which turns any arrow ethereal for 50' after being shot out of the bow. A stone wall (within 50' of the shooter) is not an obstacle to this bow, because the arrow can travel through the wall. Now, unless they have some way of seeing on the other side of the wall, they're firing blind, but the wall is no obstacle to the arrow.
ie, something is only an obstacle if it can block the thing in question. For a glass pane to be an obstacle, spells must physically travel from the caster to the target. That makes sense for some spells, but not many spells. Similarly, glass is not a barrier to light, and thus not an obstacle to a light spell.
Regarding Wall of Force, we had some conversations with the Dev, in case someone wants to follow the advice. If so, spells such as Hold Person, Hold Monster, Moonbeam, Insect Plague, Flame Strike or even Counterspell won't work because you can't target something behind Total Cover.
@DerynDraconis Is a glass window considered a total cover for the purpose of targeting a creature with Hold Person spell? @JeremyECrawford A solid obstacle, regardless of material, can provide total cover. A closed window counts.
@Dan_Dillon_1 Targeting spells/clear path: "Unoccupied space you can see" Does this imply targeting? Conjure fey across Wall of Force? @JeremyECrawford Unless a spell says otherwise, you can't cast it at someone or something behind total cover.
@crathjen Wall of Force is invisible...so it doesn't provide cover does it? Blocks physical passage though. @JeremyECrawford Cover is a physical obstruction, not necessarily a visual one.
Also, we have several threads discussing how Wall of Force works, in case they're helpful to anyone:
Regarding Wall of Force, we had some conversations with the Dev, in case someone wants to follow the advice. If so, for example spells such as Hold Person, Hold Monster, Moonbeam, Insect Plague, Flame Strike or even Counterspell won't work because you can't target things behind Total Cover.
@DerynDraconis Is a glass window considered a total cover for the purpose of targeting a creature with Hold Person spell? @JeremyECrawford A solid obstacle, regardless of material, can provide total cover. A closed window counts.
@Dan_Dillon_1 Targeting spells/clear path: "Unoccupied space you can see" Does this imply targeting? Conjure fey across Wall of Force? @JeremyECrawford Unless a spell says otherwise, you can't cast it at someone or something behind total cover.
@crathjen Wall of Force is invisible...so it doesn't provide cover does it? Blocks physical passage though. @JeremyECrawford Cover is a physical obstruction, not necessarily a visual one.
Also, we have several threads discussing how Wall of Force works, in case they're helpful to anyone:
And I think that's all obviously wrong. Charm person does not physically traverse Wall of Force or a window, so neither Wall of Force nor a window is an obstruction for it. Wall of Force is rather specific it only blocks physical things.
It seems you already have your own ruling about how targeting works, but it's not correct RAW. You can't target a creature (e.g. the one from Charm Person) that's behind Total Cover. Relevant rules:
A typical spell requires the caster to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell’s description says whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or something else.
Cover provides a degree of protection to a target behind it. There are three degrees of cover, each of which provides a different benefit to a target: Half Cover (+2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws), Three-Quarters Cover (+5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws), and Total Cover (can’t be targeted directly). If behind more than one degree of cover, a target benefits only from the most protective degree. See also “Playing the Game” (“Combat”).
Why not? Nothing about the spell description suggests that spells cannot be cast through the aura. If you choose not to be in the aura, then an enemy that's 15 feet away from you can hit you with a Magic Missile spell. They could even hit you with a Fireball spell -- it's just that the fireball would not be able to spread out very far. Likewise, that enemy that is 15 feet in front of you can target an ally that's standing 15 feet behind you with either of these spells. Nothing about the aura creates a problem for the clear path rule for spellcasting.
The spell descriptions starts : aura of antimagic, Reads like a big stopper of spells.
If the spell would travel through the anti-magic, it should get destroyed by the antimagic. Fireball and magic missile travel in a relatively straight line.
You might be able to make an argument for spells that simply manifest at the targeted point, and maybe you win that argument with your DM. I wouldn't count on it. (Note: there's probably more leeway here for if you can trace a path around the antimagic field. But if it has to go through the antimagic field, that's probably not going to fly).
Here's the text that thwarts you: "Ongoing spells, except those cast by an Artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the area. While an effect is suppressed, it doesn't function, but the time it spends suppressed counts against its duration."
Now, an instantaneous spell is only active for an instant. The moment it passes into the sphere, it gets suppressed, and then its duration expires and so it does nothing. I suppose if you cast something like charm person on someone opposite the field, and the field went down before the charm person duration expired, it would get the rest of its remaining duration.
... Actually, Antimagic Field might be a way to actually do fun stuff with timestop...
Every spell in the game works this way.
This applies even to spells such as Magic Missile which contain flavor text to make it appear as if something is shooting out from the spellcaster and moves towards the target. Mechanically, that is actually not happening. Mechanically, the effect of the Magic Missile spell originates at the target creature's location.
Next, the Clear Path rule for spellcasting:
This isn't any sort of effect travelling anywhere. This is just having a path between the spellcaster and the location where the spell effect will originate. This requirement can be blocked by Total Cover. Nothing about an AoE aura suggests (explicitly or implicitly) that it creates Total Cover.
Say what? We must be reading different languages. I am still reading in the 2024 PHB that it originates from the spellcaster. In the 70s it came from the spellcaster, when did it originate from the target?
I'm not sure exactly how that particular spell has evolved over time through the various versions of the game, but in 5e2014 and in 5e2024 the spell has a distance range. If the spell had a range of "self" instead then the spell effect would be originating from the spellcaster. But it doesn't, so it doesn't. It's cast by the spellcaster along a clear path to the target (like all spells are), but the spell effect originates at the target's location as per the general rules for spellcasting, some of which I quoted in my previous post.
If the range was self, MM can never hit a target. The range is how far away from the originator can the missile travel.
I agree. The path needs an origin and a destination. Ergo it originates from the spell caster and travels though a path (can't pass through antimagic aura/field)
Back to speaking a different language and playing a different game. The 2024 PHB has the origination of MM from the spell caster.
Nope.
Nothing actually "travels through":
The spell's effect originates from the target. But the spell itself originates from the caster and travels to the target. The effect of magic missile is the damage. The darts still appear near the caster and travel.
(A fireball's effect is a sphere of fire that deals damage. A glowing ember still shoots out from the caster and travels to the center of the detonation).
You have to have a clear path because spells travel in straight lines.
It actually doesn't though and in this exact scenario this detail actually matters.
For convenience, in spellcasting discussions we will often describe the process as you are describing it here, usually by using air quotes around the word "travels", like this:
-- The spell is cast by the spellcaster at the spellcaster's location and then it "travels" along a clear path to the target where the spell effect originates.
But that's all that it is, a convenient description. An easy way for us to picture in our minds the mechanics of spellcasting. But when you really read the rules closely, this never actually happens.
The 2014 rules attempted to give an explanation for what actually happens under the hood with this spellcasting process by describing the concept of The Weave of Magic.
So basically, the spellcaster interfaces with this Weave at his own location while casting the spell and this causes the desired effect to originate at the desired location. There is nothing magical that is physically moving from the spellcaster to the target location when the spell is cast. Nothing related to the spell actually exists at all until it originates at the point of origin.
In 2024, such explanations regarding the Weave were removed from the core rulebooks since this is really a setting-specific explanation given for the Forgotten Realms setting. Other settings will have different explanations for how this works. But in any case, the actual mechanics that are given in the core books intentionally leave this detail open for such explanations by NOT stating that something specific is "travelling" from the spellcaster to the target during the spellcasting.
Note that the Antimagic Field spell was listed there as a specific example of something that happens to the Weave so that magic "flows around" it. This means that magic cannot exist within the Field, nor can a spellcaster initiate the spellcasting process from within the Field. But it explicitly refutes the idea that a creature located behind the Field cannot be targeted. Remember, the Field does not provide Total Cover to such a creature so the Clear Path to that creature is not impacted by the Field.
This is not correct for a couple of reasons. First, the effect of the Magic Missile spell is not just the damage. It's everything that is described within the effect block of the spell description.
Furthermore, there is actually nothing in the spell description for the Magic Missile spell which states that the darts appear near the caster at all.
Now, even if it did say that the darts are shooting out from the spellcaster, mechanically that would basically be flavor text that describes what the effect looks like. Mechanically, the spell effect always originates at the point of origin for the spell -- for single target spells with a distance range, that point of origin is always at the target's location. I can't think of any exceptions to that.
And that nicely segues to . . .
Here is the relevant information about the Fireball spell:
This bright streak is basically flavor-text for this spell. It's something that creatures in the game world would see as part of the effect of the spell, but that spell effect actually originates at "a point you choose within range" as per the general rules for spell ranges that has been quoted a couple of times already.
So, if the caster of the Antimagic Field spell chose the donut-shaped option for the field, then a spellcaster outside of the field could still drop a Fireball such that it originates inside of that donut area. In that case, nearby creatures would not see a portion of the bright streak since that portion of the spell effect would be suppressed by the Field and likewise the Fireball would be smaller than usual.
As already explained, this is actually not true. The rules do not say this.
I do agree that the best interpretation of a "clear path" is that it is a straight-line path. But the rule only requires that such a path exists unimpeded by total cover. That's all.
Again, for most spellcasting discussions your above explanation adequately describes a certain concept and is fine for those purposes. For example, when someone posts a question asking if they can target a creature that they can clearly see that is on the other side of a translucent Wall of Force with their Magic Missile spell, the common answer given would be something like: "No, that creature cannot be targeted because the Wall of Force provides Total Cover to that creature and when the spell is cast it "travels" (in air-quotes) "from" (in air-quotes) the spellcaster "to" (in air-quotes) the target in a straight line "along" (in air-quotes) a clear path -- Total Cover impedes that clear path". Such an explanation is fine for that discussion because everyone sort of knows what you are talking about, and the details don't really matter in that case.
In this particular case when discussing the Antimagic Field, this detail very much does matter so we really need to carefully read what the rules actually say and be really precise with our explanations.
In fact, nothing related to the spellcasting actually travels anywhere prior to the spell effect erupting into existence at the point of origin. if two creatures are standing on opposite sides of an Antimagic Field, both located outside of the Field, neither creature enjoys the benefits of Total Cover from the other and therefore the Clear Path requirement is met when attempting to target the other creature with a spell. Nothing in the general rules for spellcasting prevents this and nothing in the description of the Antimagic Field spell prevents this either.
I would say the rules are ambiguous here rather than clear RAW.
The fireball spell clearly thinks the spell originates from the caster and travels to the point of impact/explosion.
There is decades of history behind magic missile that says the missiles appear by the caster and travel to hit their targets. There is no indication this was intended to be changed. (Contrast with fireball, where there was a deliberate intention between 2nd and 3e to change it from 33,000 cu. ft. of flame that expanded from the point of origin to a fixed radius sphere).
And Wall of Force doesn't block line of sight. It's invisible. Rather, nothing can physically pass the wall of force. (And wall of force is very specific that only physical passage is blocked). But if you want to cast charm person across it - go right ahead. You can see the creature on the other side. Charm Person doesn't travel physically. (Similarly, a window doesn't block line of sight.) Similarly, you can cast an illusion across a wall of force, or bless creatures opposite a wall of force. No physical thing needs to cross the barrier for any of these.
So in your interpretation, you can cast fireball through a wall of force. I don't think you can. I think the wall of force blocks the path of the spell, because the spell streaks from the caster to the target point as a magical physical object (it's an explosion of magical flame, which has always been an independent physical object, not just a consequence of a chemical reaction). Similarly, Wall of Force stops magic missile darts (which are force damage, so magical physical objects).
On the other hand, an antimagic field blocks the passage of all magic. That means anything cast within the donut cannot choose targets outside the donut. (To go back to the weave example from 2014, you can manipulate the weave, but the antimagic field smooths it all away when you try to manipulate the weave beyond your donut hole. The rest of the weave outside your bubble is inaccessible to you).
I don't know a single DM who would let you play antimagic field the way you're suggesting. (Or Wall of Force for that matter).
The spell effect that is created by this spell does look like this to the nearby in-world creatures. That's the effect that is being created. But the spell effect actually originates at its point of origin.
Apologies if my Wall of Force example was unclear. We risk straying off-topic if we go too far down that line of discussion, but my main point for using that example was just to note that it's often fine in most spellcasting discussions to use the common (but technically incorrect) explanation that the spell "travels" from the spellcaster to the target. In discussions such as the Wall of Force discussion, those technicalities don't really matter -- people just sort of know what you mean as soon as you bring up the Clear Path rule, regardless of how that rule is described. I've actually used that verbiage myself many times in various threads to describe the Clear Path concept. But in our discussion here, these details do matter.
But, while we are here, I really do have to correct several of your above statements because they are pretty alarming . . .
Yes, it's correct that Wall of Force does not block Line of Sight. That was the point of the example. The Clear Path rule does not actually care about Line of Sight. In only cares about whether or not there is a Clear Path. Because the Wall of Force provides Total Cover (confirmed by the developers of the game), it DOES block your ability to cast ALL spells that would attempt to directly target that creature on the other side of the wall. This means NO Charm Person. NO illusion spells (like Major Image). NO bless spell. Also NO Fireball spell. NO Magic Missile spell. The Clear Path rule prevents all of these.
The reason why all of the above spells are blocked by the Wall of Force is because all of those spells have distance ranges so the point of origin for the spell's effect is inaccessible. If instead you are casting some sort of spell with a range of "Self" then you might be able to do what you are trying to do regardless of the existence of the Wall of Force. Some divination spells work like that, for example.
You keep using words like "travel" to describe spells like Charm Person. There is no traveling whatsoever. That's the entire point of the example. The Clear Path rule prevents targeting a creature that has Total Cover, but not because the spell is somehow attempting to travel to the target. It's just because there is no Clear Path if there is Total Cover. The rules provide no further explanation. On the other hand, the Antimagic Field does not prevent the casting of Charm Person onto a target that is behind the Field . . . precisely because there is no "traveling" involved in the spellcasting process. Nothing is traveling through the Field AND the Field also does not provide Total Cover, therefore, targeting that creature with a Charm Person spell is possible in that case.
This exact scenario is perhaps open to interpretation, but I don't believe that there is any reason to assume that the 2014 example about when the Antimagic Field will "rearrange the Weave so that magic flows around, rather than through, the area affected by the spell" has anything to do with Material Plane geography. Just because you are located within the 3D donut doesn't necessarily mean that the Weave cannot be rearranged in such a way that the magic flows "around" the affected area to the area outside of it.
Let's look at what the spell actually says:
The first thing to note is that even under your interpretation the spell would merely be "suppressed" while it "travels" through the field before successfully targeting the creature behind the field:
But since that's not what actually happens during the spellcasting process, let's look at the rest of the spell:
In summary:
-- Ongoing spells are suppressed while in the area.
-- Cannot cast spells from inside the area.
-- Cannot take Magic actions inside the area.
-- Cannot create other magical effects inside the area.
-- Spells cannot target/affect anything that's inside the area.
-- Magic actions cannot target/affect anything that's inside the area.
-- Other magical effects cannot target/affect anything that's inside the area.
-- Some details about magic items, irrelevant to this discussion.
-- AoE effects cannot extend into the area.
-- Some teleportation details, irrelevant to this discussion.
That's it. That's all that the spell says that it does. This does NOT support the claim that the Field "blocks the passage of all magic". Nothing in the spell description matches up with that claim.
Furthermore, as mentioned several times now, when a spell is cast by a spellcaster that targets a nearby creature, there is NO passage of any magic happening through that space. The magic does not exist until the spell effect originates.
The only rule that could interrupt a spell that relates to something existing "between" the spellcaster and the target is the Clear Path rule which simply states that the target cannot be behind Total Cover when the spell is cast. The Anitmagic Field does not provide Total Cover.
So you're saying that a closed window blocks charm person or major image? Nonsense.
And that magic can 'travel' through an anti-magic field but not through a wall of force is also silly. Wall of Force specifically says it blocks physical passage. A mental attack is not physical, ergo, it's not blocked. I'd love to see the developer clarification, but, well, the developers have been wrong before (and even disagreed with each other). I'm going to trust the text here over what the developers say - if it's not physical in some sense, it goes right through a wall of force, because wall of force only says it blocks physical passage.
And if all magic works as you say, then a fireball can be cast through wall of force, because it doesn't travel through the wall of force. It simply originates on the other side. That's silly, but that's what you're arguing. A Wall of Force does not provide total cover, nor does it say it does, because total cover requires that the creature is hidden from view. Since the Wall of Force is invisible, it hides nothing from view. Therefore, you can see (and target) things on the other side. The only thing Wall of Force explicitly prevents is physical traversal of the Wall of Force. ie, you can see and even target a creature on the other side of a wall of force with a bow shot, but the arrow just bounces off the wall of force. And since you're arguing magic just originates at the target point, there's nothing to even cross the wall, it just happens on the other side.
To make this sillier, even if we grant both your contradictory assertions (you can't cast any spell through a wall of force because somehow an invisible barrier blocks line of sight), if you had an arcane eyes on the other side of the wall of force, now you're saying you could cast fireball through it (you have unobstructed line of sight via the eye), because the fireball doesn't travel from you, it just appears at the target point. In fact, with an arcane eye you could cast fireball at places where there were opaque physical walls between you and the target location, so long as it was within 150'.
Your assumptions and claims make no sense at any level.
Strict RAW, a wall of force only blocks physical passage and does not block line of sight (because invisible means you can see through it perfectly). If the designers wanted wall of force to stop spells from casting through it via seeing the target, they should have explicitly said so in the Wall of Force description. They can say it provides Total Cover, but the spell description does not say that, so it doesn't. (And that should really be the end of discussion on that point.) And as they didn't (and they've had two bites of the apple at this point), they're simply wrong if they say otherwise.
(You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, here. An invisible intervening object is only a problem if something has to physically travel through that space. At what level does it make sense that a pane of glass stops a charm person spell, but an intervening anti-magic field doesn't? The pane of glass blocking not only assumes the spell travels along the path, but does so physically in a way that is stopped by physical objects. So when you tell me it doesn't travel, and then invoke that... that doesn't even begin to make sense. It's stupid at a level so fundamental that no table would actually play that way).
BTW, Crawford has said Sacred Flame can be cast on creatures with Total Cover (ie, even legitimately can't see), and that's pretty obviously wrong (the spell requires you see the target). And not just once, but multiple times. So the designer track record on this is not great.
Addendums:
"The first thing to note is that even under your interpretation the spell would merely be "suppressed" while it "travels" through the field before successfully targeting the creature behind the field:"
No, suppressed means it stops traveling entirely. It just sits there at the edge of the antimagic field in abeyance until its duration runs out or the AMF goes down.
"it DOES block your ability to cast ALL spells that would attempt to directly target that creature on the other side of the wall. This means NO Charm Person. NO illusion spells (like Major Image)."
For the record, Major Image does not target any creatures. (And you should be able to not only cast Major Image across Wall of Force, but cast it on your side and have it move through a wall of force, because it is not physical, and thus Wall of Force does not block its passage.)
For what its worth, I think a key point of contention here is 'what qualifies as an obstacle'. Wall of Force specifically says it blocks physical passage. Major illusion and charm person aren't physically passing the barrier, so Wall of Force isn't an obstacle to them, and so creatures or spaces on the other side do not have total cover for them.
Consider a bow which turns any arrow ethereal for 50' after being shot out of the bow. A stone wall (within 50' of the shooter) is not an obstacle to this bow, because the arrow can travel through the wall. Now, unless they have some way of seeing on the other side of the wall, they're firing blind, but the wall is no obstacle to the arrow.
ie, something is only an obstacle if it can block the thing in question. For a glass pane to be an obstacle, spells must physically travel from the caster to the target. That makes sense for some spells, but not many spells. Similarly, glass is not a barrier to light, and thus not an obstacle to a light spell.
Regarding Wall of Force, we had some conversations with the Dev, in case someone wants to follow the advice. If so, spells such as Hold Person, Hold Monster, Moonbeam, Insect Plague, Flame Strike or even Counterspell won't work because you can't target something behind Total Cover.
Also, we have several threads discussing how Wall of Force works, in case they're helpful to anyone:
And I think that's all obviously wrong. Charm person does not physically traverse Wall of Force or a window, so neither Wall of Force nor a window is an obstruction for it. Wall of Force is rather specific it only blocks physical things.
It seems you already have your own ruling about how targeting works, but it's not correct RAW. You can't target a creature (e.g. the one from Charm Person) that's behind Total Cover. Relevant rules:
Cover