About my reply, after rethinking it, I believe for now it's RAW you can decide not to be affected by your own Antimagic Field.
The same for other Emanation spells, unless the spell says explicitly you are included.
But also in my opinion, it feels odd, at least for some spells.
While Antimagic Field emanates from the caster not included in the spell area of effect, i believe it can still be affected by it like anyone else not inside it, meaning the caster's spells, Magic action or magical effect can’t target or otherwise affect anything inside it, nor should its Magic items properties work inside the aura or on anything inside it. No teleportation, ongoing spells or areas of effect created by spells or other magic etc..
While Antimagic Field emanates from the caster not included in the spell area of effect, i believe it can still be affected by it like anyone else not inside it, meaning the caster's spells, Magic action or magical effect can’t target or otherwise affect anything inside it, nor should its Magic items properties work inside the aura or on anything inside it. No teleportation, ongoing spells or areas of effect created by spells or other magic etc..
It depends. Items worn or held that only affect the user should still work, as they are considered part of the caster and not included in the area of effect. Things like the Amulet of Health for example should still give 19 CON, and a Shield +1 should still give +1 AC. However, I agree that any magical effect that extends beyond the user shouldn't work. A dagger +2 should lose its +2 bonuses and become no more lethal than a common dagger when making an attack. The caster should still be able to cast healing word on himself, but not on anyone inside the emanation.
I'm pretty sure the line at the end indicates that antimagic field should be expected to apply to the entire aura including the origin creature of the emanation, which means it wasn't properly rewritten to account for the fact that the caster can exclude the origin creature or object. The field is an effect on you as the caster, and therefore if you are targetable by a spell, dispel magic and antimagic field should work against your anti magic field whenever you choose to exclude yourself from the area.
if you are targetable by a spell, dispel magic and antimagic field should work against your anti magic field whenever you choose to exclude yourself from the area.
I agree with you on this. If the caster chooses to exclude themselves from the effect of the spell, they get neither the inconveniences, nor the benefits. The description says that Dispel Magic has no effect on the aura, but there's nothing preventing an enemy from targeting the caster if they're excluded from it. Same with another Antimagic Field...
But when I read this:
An Emanation’s origin (creature or object) isn’t included in the area of effect unless its creator decides otherwise.
I don't think there is any way to misinterpret this line. It's as clear and unequivocal as it gets.
I think it makes it quite clear then that when I use my Invoke Duplicity: Cast Spells ability to make the Antimagic Field emanate from the duplicate as its origin, I, as the creator of the spell, can decide that it is excluded from its area of effect.
I think you are conflating the duplicate's space with the duplicate itself
Cast Spells. You can cast spells as though you were in the illusion’s space, but you must use your own senses.
That doesn't mean the spell is originating from the duplicate. You're still the one casting it. The effect just happens somewhere else
As for exempting the duplicate from antimagic field, an illusion is neither a creature nor an object. So I would say that wouldn't be an option if you cast it through the duplicate
An Emanation’s origin (creature or object) isn’t included in the area of effect unless its creator decides otherwise.
The thing that's baking my noodle right now is this line in Emanation, though
An Emanation moves with the creature or object that is its origin unless it is an instantaneous or a stationary effect.
That makes me wonder if the antimagic field (or any other emanation AoE, for that matter) would stay exactly the same distance away from you if you cast it through your duplicate and then moved. Would it become more of a Tenser's Floating Antimagic Aura at that point?
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
if you are targetable by a spell, dispel magic and antimagic field should work against your anti magic field whenever you choose to exclude yourself from the area.
I agree with you on this. If the caster chooses to exclude themselves from the effect of the spell, they get neither the inconveniences, nor the benefits. The description says that Dispel Magic has no effect on the aura, but there's nothing preventing an enemy from targeting the caster if they're excluded from it. Same with another Antimagic Field...
But when I read this:
An Emanation’s origin (creature or object) isn’t included in the area of effect unless its creator decides otherwise.
I don't think there is any way to misinterpret this line. It's as clear and unequivocal as it gets.
You are pointing to a problem. That unequivocal line doesn’t make sense in context of this spell.
Also, again, targeting the creature rather than the aura is a problem, the intent is that dispel doesn’t work at all on this spell. Reading it otherwise, via targeting the creature with the effect rather than the aura goes clearly against the intent.
As for exempting the duplicate from antimagic field, an illusion is neither a creature nor an object. So I would say that wouldn't be an option if you cast it through the duplicate
An Emanation’s origin (creature or object) isn’t included in the area of effect unless its creator decides otherwise.
That's a general rule. But "specific beats general". Invoke Duplicity's "as though you were in the illusion's space" specific rule imo supersedes the "creature or object" general rule.
You are pointing to a problem. That unequivocal line doesn’t make sense in context of this spell.
Why? I have absolutely no problem making sense of it. Why wouldn't it for this particular emanation? Can you think of another emanation for which this line would make sense to you, and tell me how it's different from Antimagic Field?
You know what you want to happen so you have an easy time making sense of it.
for one it allows you to be the target of spells like dispel magic. Whereas clearly the intent is that dispel magic should fail.
Just because something is not like you expect it, doesn't mean it makes no sense. I would agree that excluding the caster from the emanation would allow Dispel Magic to work. I would say that's a fair price to pay for the benefit of being excluded from it. I don't see the problem with that. And I don't think it's fair to use your opinion of what the intent of the spell was as an argument against that.
any spell that affects creatures in an emanation for damage works the way you’d expect: you exclude yourself so you don’t take damage.
This discussion isn’t worth me continuing in. You’ve decided how it works despite the problems, and choosing not to acknowledge them is a style of response I don’t think I want to continue to interface with. I’ll try to stick to posting on questions looking for answers.
any spell that affects creatures in an emanation for damage works the way you’d expect: you exclude yourself so you don’t take damage.
That's already how these spells work, so the emanation's rule is pointless for those spells. I was asking you if there was any spell for which the user interchangeably choosing to be affected or not would make sense to you, so you'd have an opportunity to demonstrate your good faith, and you can't give me a straight answer to this very simple question.
I did not "decide" how it works. I'm just reading it, RAW. The "problems" you mentioned are edge cases that are easily figured out, but you call them "problems" because you don't want to do that. You just want to ignore this rule, because you don't like it. I may not have years of experience with D&D, but I'm pretty sure this game doesn't work like that.
That's a general rule. But "specific beats general". Invoke Duplicity's "as though you were in the illusion's space" specific rule imo supersedes the "creature or object" general rule.
No, it doesn't, at all, because the specific isn't referring to the same thing as the general
You are the one casting the spell. The duplicate is an illusion; it can't cast spells, or be the origin of them. The only "specific beats general" that Invoke Duplicity has going for it is that you can change the spot on the map that a spell takes effect at
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Which is exactly what I was saying, so I don't understand why you're saying "No, it doesn't"... I only argued that the target/origin of the spell changes. I was only ever speaking in terms of location. I never argued that the illusion was casting the spell. At all. Note that in the Emanation's rule, the phrase "An Emanation’s origin (creature or object)" does not refer to the caster either...
The duplicate is an illusion; it can't cast spells, or be the origin of them.
I agree with "cast", but I don't agree with "origin". It's "origin" as in "spatial origin". As in "location from which it emanates". Which is exactly what Invoke Duplicity: Cast Spells does.
Which is exactly what I was saying, so I don't understand why you're saying "No, it doesn't"... I only argued that the target/origin of the spell changes. I was only ever speaking in terms of location. I never argued that the illusion was casting the spell. At all. Note that in the Emanation's rule, the phrase "An Emanation’s origin (creature or object)" does not refer to the caster either...
Then why are you arguing that the duplicate can remain exempt from the casting?
EDIT: the caster is most definitely a creature, so yes, the general rule for Emanation does refer to the caster of a Self spell
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It was, but I didn't realize there was a rule about this and I thought it was open to interpretation, which is why I asked for advice.
Holy shit Darkness! <3
I can cast darkness on a torch and get an "anti-torch" :D
(Also how do you make tooltips? They look really cool!)
PS: I think this link to the definition of Emanation was added recently, maybe that's why I didn't realize it was there.
I recommend this post for tooltips: How To Add Tooltips
While Antimagic Field emanates from the caster not included in the spell area of effect, i believe it can still be affected by it like anyone else not inside it, meaning the caster's spells, Magic action or magical effect can’t target or otherwise affect anything inside it, nor should its Magic items properties work inside the aura or on anything inside it. No teleportation, ongoing spells or areas of effect created by spells or other magic etc..
It depends. Items worn or held that only affect the user should still work, as they are considered part of the caster and not included in the area of effect. Things like the Amulet of Health for example should still give 19 CON, and a Shield +1 should still give +1 AC.
However, I agree that any magical effect that extends beyond the user shouldn't work.
A dagger +2 should lose its +2 bonuses and become no more lethal than a common dagger when making an attack.
The caster should still be able to cast healing word on himself, but not on anyone inside the emanation.
I look at it a lot like the echo knight. The duplicate is just a placeholder in space that your character can momentarily work out of.
EDIT: I'm speaking purely in the context of the cleric casting a spell in this example.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I'm pretty sure the line at the end indicates that antimagic field should be expected to apply to the entire aura including the origin creature of the emanation, which means it wasn't properly rewritten to account for the fact that the caster can exclude the origin creature or object. The field is an effect on you as the caster, and therefore if you are targetable by a spell, dispel magic and antimagic field should work against your anti magic field whenever you choose to exclude yourself from the area.
Plague, Wolf, I need time to think about this :'(
Part of my heart is with you (the aura affects you either way), while the other part is suffering from the consequences of the Emanation description.
As always, thanks to both of you for your thoughts and explanations.
I agree with you on this. If the caster chooses to exclude themselves from the effect of the spell, they get neither the inconveniences, nor the benefits.
The description says that Dispel Magic has no effect on the aura, but there's nothing preventing an enemy from targeting the caster if they're excluded from it.
Same with another Antimagic Field...
But when I read this:
I don't think there is any way to misinterpret this line. It's as clear and unequivocal as it gets.
I think you are conflating the duplicate's space with the duplicate itself
That doesn't mean the spell is originating from the duplicate. You're still the one casting it. The effect just happens somewhere else
As for exempting the duplicate from antimagic field, an illusion is neither a creature nor an object. So I would say that wouldn't be an option if you cast it through the duplicate
The thing that's baking my noodle right now is this line in Emanation, though
That makes me wonder if the antimagic field (or any other emanation AoE, for that matter) would stay exactly the same distance away from you if you cast it through your duplicate and then moved. Would it become more of a Tenser's Floating Antimagic Aura at that point?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You are pointing to a problem. That unequivocal line doesn’t make sense in context of this spell.
Also, again, targeting the creature rather than the aura is a problem, the intent is that dispel doesn’t work at all on this spell. Reading it otherwise, via targeting the creature with the effect rather than the aura goes clearly against the intent.
Oh I absolutely agree with that. That's an exception introduced by Invoke Duplicity.
That's a general rule. But "specific beats general". Invoke Duplicity's "as though you were in the illusion's space" specific rule imo supersedes the "creature or object" general rule.
Why? I have absolutely no problem making sense of it. Why wouldn't it for this particular emanation? Can you think of another emanation for which this line would make sense to you, and tell me how it's different from Antimagic Field?
You know what you want to happen so you have an easy time making sense of it.
for one it allows you to be the target of spells like dispel magic. Whereas clearly the intent is that dispel magic should fail.
Just because something is not like you expect it, doesn't mean it makes no sense. I would agree that excluding the caster from the emanation would allow Dispel Magic to work. I would say that's a fair price to pay for the benefit of being excluded from it. I don't see the problem with that. And I don't think it's fair to use your opinion of what the intent of the spell was as an argument against that.
aura of life doesn’t make sense with the line from emanations. You are affected.
The first example was still in the “A”s.
I was asking if you had any example for which the line DOES make sense to you...
And by the way, I'm only asking so we can compare it with Antimagic Field and figure out what would set them apart.
Because so far, you seem determined to just ignore that rule entirely, simply because you don't like it...
any spell that affects creatures in an emanation for damage works the way you’d expect: you exclude yourself so you don’t take damage.
This discussion isn’t worth me continuing in. You’ve decided how it works despite the problems, and choosing not to acknowledge them is a style of response I don’t think I want to continue to interface with. I’ll try to stick to posting on questions looking for answers.
That's already how these spells work, so the emanation's rule is pointless for those spells.
I was asking you if there was any spell for which the user interchangeably choosing to be affected or not would make sense to you, so you'd have an opportunity to demonstrate your good faith, and you can't give me a straight answer to this very simple question.
I did not "decide" how it works. I'm just reading it, RAW. The "problems" you mentioned are edge cases that are easily figured out, but you call them "problems" because you don't want to do that. You just want to ignore this rule, because you don't like it. I may not have years of experience with D&D, but I'm pretty sure this game doesn't work like that.
No, it doesn't, at all, because the specific isn't referring to the same thing as the general
You are the one casting the spell. The duplicate is an illusion; it can't cast spells, or be the origin of them. The only "specific beats general" that Invoke Duplicity has going for it is that you can change the spot on the map that a spell takes effect at
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Which is exactly what I was saying, so I don't understand why you're saying "No, it doesn't"...
I only argued that the target/origin of the spell changes. I was only ever speaking in terms of location.
I never argued that the illusion was casting the spell. At all.
Note that in the Emanation's rule, the phrase "An Emanation’s origin (creature or object)" does not refer to the caster either...
I agree with "cast", but I don't agree with "origin". It's "origin" as in "spatial origin". As in "location from which it emanates".
Which is exactly what Invoke Duplicity: Cast Spells does.
Then why are you arguing that the duplicate can remain exempt from the casting?
EDIT: the caster is most definitely a creature, so yes, the general rule for Emanation does refer to the caster of a Self spell
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)