Wall of Force and Anti-Magic Field

[zepherus]

A tactic came up in my weekly game that caused quite a discussion, so I thought I would turn to all of you for an opinion.

The PC's had cast an Anti-Magic Field ( AMF ) to lock down an NPC. Another PC then decided they would block the NPC into the area using a Wall of Force (WoF), which due to the room constraints had to go through the antimagic field.

The players read the AMF rule that stated a WoF would remain unaffected by an AMF. I ( the DM ) stated that the word "remains" is what makes it not work. I stated that if you had a WoF in place, THEN cast an AMF, the wall would remain...but it doesn't work in reverse. Since they had cast the AMF first, they could not build a WoF though it ( in that the wall would just not exist in the AMF ).

Opinions? Thoughts?

Thanks! -

Zepherus

 

[bobhayes]

You are correct. No spell can be cast into or through an area containing an anti-magic field; it is automatically suppressed. Existing walls of force, etc., are unaffected per their spell descriptions.

 

[Dandu]

Double post

 

[Dandu]

An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines.

An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration.

Summoned creatures of any type and incorporeal undead wink out if they enter an antimagic field. They reappear in the same spot once the field goes away. Time spent winked out counts normally against the duration of the conjuration that is maintaining the creature. If you cast antimagic field in an area occupied by a summoned creature that has spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against the creature’s spell resistance to make it wink out. (The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)

A normal creature can enter the area, as can normal missiles. Furthermore, while a magic sword does not function magically within the area, it is still a sword (and a masterwork sword at that). The spell has no effect on golems and other constructs that are imbued with magic during their creation process and are thereafter self-supporting (unless they have been summoned, in which case they are treated like any other summoned creatures). Elementals, corporeal undead, and outsiders are likewise unaffected unless summoned. These creatures’ spell-like or supernatural abilities, however, may be temporarily nullified by the field. Dispel magic does not remove the field, though Mage's Disjunction might.

Two or more antimagic fields sharing any of the same space have no effect on each other. Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions). Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this.

Important points:
1. AMF prevents the functioning of spells in its area of effect.
2. It does so by suppressing spells cast into it or brought into it, but not dispelling them.
3. Certain spells, such as a Wall of Force, remain unaffected when cast in an Antimagic Field.

This definitely means that you can cast a Wall of Force and have it remain in place if someone walks up to it with an AMF. It does not seem like you can cast a Wall of Force into an AMF, though RAW is a little poorly worded and ambiguous here. I'd say that the word "remain" implies that it had to be up beforehand.

 

[Jhaelen]

You are correct. No spell can be cast into or through an area containing an anti-magic field; it is automatically suppressed. Existing walls of force, etc., are unaffected per their spell descriptions.

Actually, this was recently shown to be incorrect in a similar discussion in this forum.

An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it.

I.e. you can cast a Wall of Force that is partially or completely contained within the area of the antimagic field.

 

[zepherus]

Right...you can cast a wall of force in an anti-magic field, and it will not be dispelled.

However, it will be suppressed within the confines of the anti-magic field for the duration of the anti-magic field ( or it's duration, whichever comes first ).

If the anti-magic field ends before the wall of force, then the wall will appear where it was cast. But as long as the anti-magic field is in use, the wall will not exist within the field.

That's how I read it, is there some previous post that definitively spells it out?

Zepherus

 

[Jhaelen]

Right...you can cast a wall of force in an anti-magic field, and it will not be dispelled.

However, it will be suppressed within the confines of the anti-magic field for the duration of the anti-magic field ( or it's duration, whichever comes first ).

If the anti-magic field ends before the wall of force, then the wall will appear where it was cast. But as long as the anti-magic field is in use, the wall will not exist within the field.

Yup, that appears to be correct.

 

[steeldragons]

Right...you can cast a wall of force in an anti-magic field, and it will not be dispelled.

However, it will be suppressed within the confines of the anti-magic field for the duration of the anti-magic field ( or it's duration, whichever comes first ).

I have SUCH a big problem with this. Yes, by the book, this appears to be the correct interpretation. I can't argue that point.

But can someone please explain to me, how you are able to cast a spell (that is, harness and direct magical energies) INSIDE a field that negates magical energies?

Even going by the book description pedantry of "Suppress" versus "Dispel/Cancel", how do you justify being able to work with magic, at all, in an area that does not allow magic to function? There's nothing for you to, metaphorically, "grab onto" to make a spell happen...whether the magic is to manifest inside the field or outside the field doesn't matter...it's being "suppressed."

You say the words, make the gestures, rub the rabbit fur or what have you, and magical energy does its thing per that "formula" (i.e. the spell). In an AMF, there is no "raw material" as it were to make the spell happen.

To attempt another metaphor, it's like trying to build a sandcastle (the spell) completely immersed in water (the AMF).

I see no reason/justification that casting within an AMF should be allowed at all.

But, regardless, the OP made the right call.

--SD

 

[Dandu]

You say the words, make the gestures, rub the rabbit fur or what have you, and magical energy does its thing per that "formula" (i.e. the spell). In an AMF, there is no "raw material" as it were to make the spell happen.

The raw material is there, it is just inert for the time being.

 

[Jhaelen]

But can someone please explain to me, how you are able to cast a spell (that is, harness and direct magical energies) INSIDE a field that negates magical energies?

That's exactly the fine distinction that is difficult to see if you don't read the effect of an Antimagic Field carefully. It does not negate magic per se, it just negates the effects created by magic. I.e. you can cast your spells just fine, but nothing appears to happen - until you leave the field or the field expires.

There are comparable real-world examples for this kind of behaviour, and suppression is actually a good way to describe it. If anything it's the name 'Antimagic Field' that is misleading, it could have been called more accurately 'Magic Suppression Field'.

E.g. in medicine, pain-killers work similarly: They don't actually do anything to eliminate the source of the pain, they just allow you to no longer feel any pain while the pain-killer is in effect.