[OOC] Return to the Rusty Rat

[Torin]

With no access to youtube at the moment (corporate firewall...)

I have access to youtube (I checked about 1-2 weeks ago). Only the hungarian videostreaming sites (indavideo.hu, videa.hu, ...) are blocked by our corporate firewall. Maybe you work for a different company (Our DM was joined to "my company" about a week ago.)

[Torin]

• No supernatural ability, spell-like ability, or spell works in an area of antimagic (but extraordinary abilities still work).
  
• Antimagic does not dispel magic; it suppresses it. Once a magical effect is no longer affected by the antimagic (the antimagic fades, the center of the effect moves away, and so on), the magic returns.
  
• Spells that still have part of their duration left begin functioning again, magic items are once again useful, and so forth.
  
• Spell areas that include both an antimagic area and a normal area, but are not centered in the antimagic area, still function in the normal area. If the spell's center is in the antimagic area, then the spell is suppressed.
  
• Golems and other constructs, elementals, outsiders, and corporeal undead, still function in an antimagic area (though the antimagic area suppresses their spellcasting and their supernatural and spell-like abilities normally). If such creatures are summoned or conjured, however, see below.
  
• Summoned or conjured creatures of any type, as well as incorporeal undead, wink out if they enter the area of an antimagic effect. They reappear in the same spot once the field goes away.
  
• Magic items with continuous effects, such as a bag of holding, do not function in the area of an antimagic effect, but their effects are not canceled (so the contents of the bag are unavailable, but neither spill out nor disappear forever).
  
• Two antimagic areas in the same place do not cancel each other out, nor do they stack.
  
• Wall of force, prismatic wall, and prismatic sphere are not affected by antimagic. Break enchantment, dispel magic, and greater dispel magic spells do not dispel antimagic. Mordenkainen's disjunction has a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined.
  

IMHO every spells are working (see expects above) just suppressed in the area of antimagic, e.g. if you casts a wall of fire which starts outside of antimagic filed and go through it then it effects before and after the antimagic field.

[Toot]

While skimming through Sage Advise in my Dragon Magazines, the sage answered a question about invisibility.  He was asked if Detect Magic was considered an attack?  Skip Williams stated, if the area of the detect magic included a foe, it would count as an "attack" for purposes of the spell.  His reasoning was, Invisibility stated, "an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area of effect includes a foe."  Of course, the DM can overrule The Sage's interpretation of the rule, but I just thought this was interesting.

[Lugar]

While skimming through Sage Advise in my Dragon Magazines, the sage answered a question about invisibility.  He was asked if Detect Magic was considered an attack?  Skip Williams stated, if the area of the detect magic included a foe, it would count as an "attack" for purposes of the spell.  His reasoning was, Invisibility stated, "an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area of effect includes a foe."  Of course, the DM can overrule The Sage's interpretation of the rule, but I just thought this was interesting.

That is awesome. Definitely up for debate though. Devil's advocate, how is information an attack? Would Mage hand be considered an attack too if you tried to lift keys of a person? I think interaction and attack are two separate things

[Toot]

There were several other questions about invisibility.  Such as:

*Would an invisible character counterspelling an enemy's spell count as makning an attack?
*Answer?  Yes

*What about a targeted dispel magic?
*Answer?  If targeted on a foe is a spell "Targeting a foe," so it would end the invisibility. 

*Does casting flaming sphere in a non-offensive manner -- such as to start a campfire -- count as an attack?
*Answer:  No.  Actions directed at unattended objects wouldn't end an invisibility spell, even if the ensuing blaze included foes in its area.

*Does casting sanctuary end and invisibility because it requires a foe to resist its effect with a save through?  What about wall of fire?
*Answer: No.  Any spell that only causes harm indirectly (including causing harm due to another creature's actions, such as sanctuary) in not an attack, even if its effects can be resisted with a saving throw.

Other spells that can fall into this category include fire trap (since its harmful effect is triggered by a character opening the trapped item), Spiked stones (since its harmful effect is triggered by a character walking over it), and wall of fire (since its harmful effect is triggered by a character approaching within 20'.

Of course, even some of these spells may be able to be cast in such a way as to end an invisibility spell.  If a wall of fire is cast within 20 feet of another creature, it immediately and directly causes harm to that creature, which would end invisibility.

*So to answer your question about lifting the keys off a person with mage hand, I believe the answer is yes, it would end invisibility because the Keys are on someone and therefore are considered an attended object.

[DM Surranó]

Whoa whoa I have to disagree with this stuff.

First, my question wasn't about spell effects crossing antimagic. It was about the line of effect crossing antimagic. And even summoning spells need line of effect between the caster and the point of origin, so no, you cannot summon something on the far side of a door (or even a window). "You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect." You need not be able to see the origin, though, e.g. darkness or fog are no obstacles.

Second, the notion of "any spell targeting a foe or whose area of effect includes a foe" is quite some overshot, definitely not RAI.
With this logic, Bless cast on my companions or a Silent Image would count as an attack.
Detect Magic is a strange example because it can actually used against the foe (by gaining information you might gain combat advantage) in an indirect manner so I'd say it's more along the line of manipulating unattended objects.
That said, Invisibility is ridiculously powerful for a level 2 spell and maybe that's what they tried desperately to address in this sage advice

[Toot]

First, I agree that if you have a target then you must have line of effect.  Summoning is a little bit different because it doesn't have a target.  In any case, if Toot really wants to cast spells into that room, he just has to drill a 1' wide hole in the wall where the antimagic field isn't with a Thoqqua and tada, he can now cast spells into the area.

Second, your question about Bless was covered somewhere and it said that Bless wouldn't be an attack since it just gives allies the bonus and does nothing to foes.  Detect magic does affect a foe because all the objects he is wearing is considered attended.  Silent image is tricky and would depend upon a lot of different factors.

[Portho Nihilbuck]

Agreed, Skip isn't known to ALWAYS be correct. That is why his column is usually taken as advice, not alaaways implemented in errata. I ama big fan of using rules as intended to adjudicate.

[DM Surranó]

First, I agree that if you have a target then you must have line of effect.  Summoning is a little bit different because it doesn't have a target.  In any case, if Toot really wants to cast spells into that room, he just has to drill a 1' wide hole in the wall where the antimagic field isn't with a Thoqqua and tada, he can now cast spells into the area.

Summoning has no target; it has an effect and thus "a space in which you wish to create an effect". But yes, you are right about the hole thing; provided the hole provides a straight line. If you have to arc around the field... (hint: there are positions on the map where you don't)

[Toot]

Agreed, Skip isn't known to ALWAYS be correct. That is why his column is usually taken as advice, not alaaways implemented in errata. I ama  big fan of using rules as intended to adjudicate.

No, he's not always correct and he has even errata'd rulings he has previously made.  Also, DM's are always allowed to interpret rules as they'd like.  But Skip does/did work for WotC and Sage Advice was the Official Question and Answer column for WotC.  However, if an answer doesn't work for your game then ignore it but it's not like he was just some noob who was pulling answers out of his ass.  

The problem with 3.5 is they created so many splat books that it's impossible to determine how they will interact with one another.  And Players are clever little...   who can come up with crazy combinations.