I have a question that is giving me several problems, which emerged in an online land, a play by chat. In D&D an Antimagic Field says:

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 (The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)

Thus a summoned creature does not disappear but continues to exist even if it cannot appear in the area of ​​the antimagical field and, therefore, the rounds continue to be counted. It can only reappear if the MFA moves or ceases and the duration of the summon has not ended.

How do Orb of fire / cold / acid / force / electricity / sound behave?

  1. do they cross the antimagic field without hitting the caster and proceed further?
  2. do they cancel as soon as they hit the antimagical field?
  3. hit and therefore penetrate the MFA injuring the caster?

My doubts arise because even though it is a Creation, and moreover Instantaneous, they are still a magical effect that is not permanent, unlike the Stone Wall, for example. They are not a "natural" energetic effect like a fire set by a Flaming Sphere (2nd level wizards / sorcerers), nor do they create a real puddle of acid in which one falls or lowers the temperature in the area. They are a magical attack, but not a magical effect like a crack in the ground, created with Earthquake, in which the caster would fall even if protected by AMF.

So how do these orb spells interact with an Antimagic Field?

  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Welcome! You can take the tour as an introduction to the site and check the help center for further guidance. I have made (and am making) several edits to hopefully improve the organization and readability of the question. If you disagree with any change feel free to edit or rollback any or all of the changes. Good luck and happy gaming! \$\endgroup\$ – Sdjz May 27 '19 at 15:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ The linked question handles what the rules actually say. The further question about whether or not they should say that, particularly in the case of orb spells, could be a separate question, but I'm not sure how to (or even if you could) make that Stack-appropriate. (Side-note: my answer to the linked question really could be improved upon, and I’ll look into that after I get back from vacation, but anyone else who wants to take a stab at it is welcome to try. Point is, they should do it there, not here.) \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan May 27 '19 at 17:12

Orbs from outside an antimagic field penetrate an antimagic field

The description of the 6th-level Sor/Wiz spell antimagic field [abjur] (Player's Handbook 200), in part, says, "The effects of instantaneous conjurations, such as create water, are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result."

The 4th-level Sor/Wiz spell orb of acid [conj] (Spell Compendium 150) et al. are all both spells of the conjuration subschool creation and spells that possess a duration of instantaneous. This means the orb spells neatly and completely meet the requirements for remaining unaffected by the spell antimagic field.

Thus, no matter how stupid it may seem, when a wizard casts the spell antimagic field, an enemy sorcerer outside the field can cast the 4th-level Sor/Wiz spell orb of force [conj] (SpC 151) and send that instantaneous effect of the creation subschool zipping right through the antimagic field effect without a problem to—potentially—bonk that wizard right on the noggin.

There's no way for me to justify this except to say that no matter how extraordinarily convoluted, contradictory, and controversial the effects of antimagic are generally, this is one of the areas that the rules surrounding antimagic are actually clear on: The orb spell effects really do go right through an antimagic field effect and can, with a successful ranged touch attack roll, deal their damage normally to a creature within.

Note: The effects of antimagic are among the game's most complicated. This reader doesn't recommend anyone use antimagic. In nearly 20 years of once-a-week play, this player and DM has never seen antimagic used without subsequent argument. This reader recommends doing without the concept of antimagic if at all possible.

  • \$\begingroup\$ First of all, I apologize if the format of my application was not suitable and if anyone has had to work so hard to fix it. I apologize and thank you already for this huge job. thank you! (multiple courtesy bows) Then ... I read the answer, and I seem to understand that the logical answer would actually be my BUT, since given that the Wizard does not use logic (: p) one arrives at the absurd that a spell that causes damage is in able to overcome and inflict wounds on a spellcaster even if protected by an antimagical field. \$\endgroup\$ – Lordgirsa May 27 '19 at 17:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ Which essentially makes the Orbs, the most over power spells that I can know, surpassing all the traditional weak points that made the spellcaster typical balanced compared to other classes. Essentially, the Orbs hit magic-free Golems. They do not suffer from the spells of Immunity to lower, normal and higher spells because the requirement is that the spellcaster renders immune to a spell that requires Spell Resistance. And, now I learn, they pierce an Antimagic Field allowing to hurt or kill a spellcaster who is sure to be, instead, completely protected by magic. I'm pretty shocked. \$\endgroup\$ – Lordgirsa May 27 '19 at 17:29
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Lordgirsa I don't know what to tell you, man. You can also get angry at the 4th-level spell blast of flame [conj] (SpC 31) if you want. I know the spells don't make sense; it's why I asked about what they actually do in this question. I heard a rumor that the orb spells' original author was playing a wizard PC who had banned evocation, and the author sneaked those spells into Complete Arcane hoping that no one would notice, but I absolutely can't back up that rumor at all. \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan May 27 '19 at 17:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ @annoyingimp Actually, what happens after to an orb spell effect (and other effects) after dealing or not dealing damage is the subject of this question, and opinions vary too wildly for me to try to summarize the controversy here, especially as the asker is only really concerned about dealing damage to a caster that's within an antimagic field. (The et al. covers the missing words… substitute the et al. for and others and the second 'graph should read fine.) \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan May 29 '19 at 5:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ @annoyingimp RE: "But if you don't think that firing orb of a[c]id isn't th[e] same as firing a drop of mundane acid from a syringe th[e]n you are of course free to leave your answer as is." [wipes forehead in relief] That's great because I don't think that firing an orb of acid isn't the same as administering acid with a syringe. :-) Seriously, I get what you're saying, but I do honestly think the answer goes as far as it needs to—even if that may not be as far as you want it to. Consider raising your concerns on the marked-as-a-dupe answer. \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan May 29 '19 at 12:11

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.