Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
This applies the projectiles too.
So you agree, the spell doesn't say that a projectile can reach through the effect.
An AoE type effect "can't extend into" the aura and thus cannot extend "through" the aura. But an ongoing AoE that can be moved, such as Spirit Guardians is merely "suppressed" while in the field. For example, someone could target himself with Spirit Guardians while outside of the aura, then walk through the aura and out the other side of it and at that point the Spirit Guardians spell would be functioning as normal.
Spells which are not AoE spells and are designed to directly target a creature within a specified Range are only restricted by where the spell is cast and where the target is located. The Range of such spells determines where the effect originates. Even a spell like Magic Missile, regardless of its flavor, has its effect created at the target creature's location. So, if two spellcasters are facing each other with an antimagic aura located between them, but neither of these spellcasters is actually located within the aura, then the first spellcaster can cast Magic Missile and target the second spellcaster with that spell, and the second spellcaster can cast Magic Missile and target the first spellcaster with that spell. There is nothing within the text of the Antimagic Field spell which prevents this.
The rules on targeting spells state that they require a “Clear Path to the Target”. It specifically mentions Total Cover, but it strains credulity to say a path through an antimagic field’s effect would still be “clear” for the purposes of spell targeting. There are a small number of spells that arguably or explicitly eschew this “clear path” requirement, but I think those are the only cases where it’s ambiguous if you could target an antimagic field’s caster that’s been excluded from the emanation or if that caster could target something outside the field.
The rules don’t explicitly state it, but spells also require a clear path between the caster and the point of origin for an area of effect when the spell is cast. If that wasn’t the case there’s nothing stopping you from choosing a point of origin on the far side of a solid wall with your ice storm spells. Similarly you aren’t able to just cast a fireball that originates from inside an antimagic field’s caster, but one that swallowed a delayed blast fireball might still be in for it.
It should also be noted that only the caster is excluded from an emanation, not the caster’s space. So a Halfling or Tiny creature wouldn’t be able to cast spells when they’re sharing a space with an antimagic field’s caster. Whether that caster’s held and carried items are rendered magically inert is more in the realm of DM fiat since spells typically affect borne items along with the bearer.
I would note that if an antimagic field does not affect the caster, it also does not protect the caster -- both its protective effects and its detrimental effects only apply to targets 'within the aura'.
If an antimagic field affected its caster, then the spell would suppress itself. It's even more obvious in the case of the antimagic armor, because "magical properties of magic items don't work inside the aura".
Areas of Magic. The area of another spell or magical effect, such as fireball, can't extend into the sphere.
It works fine.
Even if it didn't have an exception for itself, it would still work fine, because the spell has to work in order to work.
Magic items aren't spells. They're items.
OR it means that it was not intended to affect the caster.
The spell not affecting the caster would not solve the problem -- ongoing spells are not suppressed if their caster is in the area, they're suppressed if their effect is in the area. Thus, the only way antimagic field can function is if we assume that antimagic field is immune to antimagic field.
But, AGAIN, and antimagic armor is not a spell effect, it's a magic item. EVEN if we assume that the spell doesn't suppress itself, it would still suppress the armor, rendering it mundane, which THEN would have the direct consequence of suppressing the magic allowing the user from casting antimagic field from it.
It doesn't make the armor nonmagical, it suppresses its magical properties, but in any case it doesn't matter, since antimagic field has already been cast, and antimagic field does not end magical effects.
I guess you don't need to be able to cast spells to be able to concentrate on one... but it's kinda weird.
It's also from the 5.0 rules, where there is no question that AMF includes the caster.
And even in 5.5, there's no question that the caster can include themself in the area, by the rules of emanations. And it must work under that circumstance.
The argument that AMF must not include the caster because it would suppress itself doesn't hold, because AMF doesn't suppress itself.
And also the idea that this interpretation is clearly their intent doesn't hold, because it's too subtle. If you're changing behavior in a rule revision, you must state it outright, because otherwise people will not notice.
My conclusion from all this discussion is:
I don't disagree with the rest of your reply, or the sensibility of what you're saying here, but empirically, it's not really the case. There are many spell and rules where a critical bit of information was subtly altered in a way that significantly change its behavior.
I mean, half of the discussions of this very forum are about things like that...
Armor of Agathys now remains active no matter the source of the temp HP, which is a huge game changer for shape-shifters (which by the way now allows Legendary Actions).
Because grapples are now tied to Unarmed Strike, you can now grapple someone as an Attack of Opportunity. That's not stated explicitly, but it's a big deal.
Suggestion changed "reasonable" to "achievable", which meant that a lot of very unreasonable but technically achievable commands became fair game, like "submit to all non-damaging spells willingly for the next 8 hours".
"You can equip or unequip a weapon before or after each attack made as part of the Attack action." which made a bunch of weapon juggling builds viable.
And of course Emanation rules being standardized and indirectly changing the mechanics of many spells and features.
And many other examples I'm not thinking of on the top of my head.
5.5e is full of subtle changes with big ripple effects that dramatically change how the game is played. If you don't like it, you can always stick to 5e, like many chose to do.
Yes, because the Anti-magic rule is specific, which overrules the general rules of emanation.
If we don't count the caster as being in the antimagic field (which I agree is a valid interpretation of the 2024 rules, though probably not intended):
Generally speaking, if you're going to the effort of casting antimagic field in the first place, you'd rather the antimagic field actually protect you from magic, so you're probably going to choose to include yourself within the emanation.
Keep in mind that if they catch a spellcaster inside the antimagic field, it doesn't matter if the player can be target by spells, because that spellcaster won't be able to cast spells in the first place, or take any kind of Magic action. And to me it doesn't make any sense to cast a protective spell that leaves you completely harmless.
My assumption is that the reason you cast antimagic shell is to deal with a distant enemy bombarding you with spells, and it's difficult to maintain concentration through a meteor swarm.
Even if you allowed targeted spells to go through an antimagic field, I don’t see how you’d be able to affect an AMF’s caster with a spell’s Area of Effect. That Area of Effect expressly cannot extend into an AMF. It’s a little different from the legacy version of the spell, where the area of the AMF was just excluded from other spells’ AoEs. In 5.5 all AoEs have an origin, and there would always be antimagic field blocking the path between that origin and the AMF’s caster. Again, I don’t see why the AMF wouldn’t block the path for a targeted spell too, but I’ll admit that you could read the spell’s description so that a path to a target from an AoE’s origin is treated differently than a path to a target coming directly from a spellcaster.
What I don’t think is ambiguous is that magic weapons would still lack their magic properties when they hit an AMF’s caster. They don’t stop being in the antimagic field just because they’re in contact with the caster. They’d have to be worn or held by the caster for even the loose interpretation that they’re excluded from the AMF as part of the caster’s person.
An AMF prevents the area of the spell from affect things in the AMF. Things that are not in the AMF are not protected, and there's no evidence that passing through the AMF blocks line of effect (if it does, the caster cannot target anything other than self).
I disagree. There's Globe of Invulnerability for that. To me, Antimagic Field's purpose is to shut down enemy spellcasters. That's why GoI is listed as a "Negation" spell, while AMF is listed as a "Control" spell.
But that control is pointless if you also shut yourself down in the process.