On page 213 of the PHB for Antimagic Field:

Spells. Any active spell or other magical effect on a creature or an object in the sphere is suppressed while the creature or object is in it.

And on page 289 for Wish:

You grant up to ten creatures you can see immunity to a single spell or other magical effect for 8 hours.

This creates a paradox where Antimagic Field shuts down the active spell effect of Wish while Wish makes the caster immune to the effects of Antimagic Field.

Would Wish come out on top due to it being 9th level while Antimagic Field is 8th level?


Specific Beats General

PHB 7 states,

If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.

In this case, the Wish specifically states that the target is immune to the Antimagic Field, whereas the text of Antimagic Field is more general. Thus, the Wish wins out.

Note that I think the wish only applies to the creature(s) it's cast on, though. You'd probably have to word the Wish quite carefully to allow casters to cast spells on other creatures inside the field, for example. Additionally, I wonder if such a wish would make that creature vulnerable to magic when they otherwise wouldn't be...

Careful Wordings

Note that any usage of wish besides the ones listed in the text gives the GM latitude to mess up your wish, and a sufficiently crafty DM could probably poke holes in nearly any wording. Depending on your particular situation, you could word your wish in several ways:

  • "I wish that any spell that I cast will not be suppressed by an antimagic field"
  • "I wish that my magic items would still function in an antimagic field"
  • "I wish for the ability to selectively un-suppress magical effects in an antimagic field"
  • "I wish that any beneficial magical effect targeted on myself will not be suppressed by an antimagic field"
  • "I wish that only spells cast by [hostile creature] are affected by this antimagic field"
  • \$\begingroup\$ Are you saying AMF only applies to creature it is cast on, or only Wish does? \$\endgroup\$ – Reibello Feb 15 '17 at 3:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ Sorry about the ambiguity; I've corrected it. \$\endgroup\$ – Icyfire Feb 15 '17 at 3:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ Okay, so how does that jive with the excerpt above stating "You grant up to ten creatures you can see immunity to a single spell..." ? \$\endgroup\$ – Reibello Feb 15 '17 at 3:22
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I suppose the wish could be better worded as "I wish that spells and other magical effects originating from up to 10 creatures are immune to Antimagic Field." One could also throw in the equipment worn by said creatures, but I don't know how much that overloads the Wish spell. \$\endgroup\$ – Aaron Koning Feb 15 '17 at 3:28
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Specific v General does not apply here-- neither is within the scope of the other so neither can be a specific exception to the other's general rule. Your conclusion is right, however. \$\endgroup\$ – Please stop being evil Feb 15 '17 at 3:42

Wish 's Immunity trumps Anti Magic Field 's suppression

There's no paradox. Wish has to be affected by Anti Magic Field to be suppressed. That suppression can't happen because the Wish is immune, so the Wish functions as normal.

Let's consider a fabricated analogy:

You're wearing the Armor of Protection From Sundering. It keeps you safe from giant hammers and stuff, and also grants you and your equipment immunity against effects that would specifically destroy them.

Your opponent is wielding the Axe of Sundering. It destroys the armor of anyone it hits. He hits you.

What happens is that your armor doesn't break. If the armor was already broken, then the axe could affect it, true, but as long as the armor isn't already rendered ineffective the axe can't do anything. Your armor is immune to the effects of the axe, but nothing makes the axe immune to the effects of your armor. The same thing is true in your question proper: Wish is immune to the effects of Anti Magic Field, but Anti Magic Field is not immune to the effects of Wish.

N.B. This answer assumes that the immunity to antimagic field you postulate in your question is relevant, viz. that the immunity will in fact protect the Wish spell. This may not be the case! It is reasonable for a GM to rule, as you seem inclined to, that a character who is by nature 'immune to Anti Magic Field' who wields, for example, a +2 flaming longsword would be able to employ the sword's magic powers within such a field. It would also be reasonable to rule, however, that it is the sword and not the character who must be immune for the sword to function. In the latter case you will have some difficulty making Wish's immunity relevant, although it may still be possible to do so. In any case, as long as the immunity is relevant, this answer stands, and the best way to discern if it's relevant or not is going to be to ask your GM.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This is very flawed logic. The wish spell is an EFFECT which grants up to ten creatures immunity from a single other spell or spell like effect. If the wish effect works, then the creatures can employ their own magic inside the field. It is the creatures which enjoy the immunity. Nothing implies that the wish effect itself enjoys that same immunity. The paradox stands. \$\endgroup\$ – Novak Feb 15 '17 at 6:33
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ This seems like a restatement of the paradox. One could just as easily say that Antimagic Field suppresses all magical effects, so the Wish's protection from AMF is also suppressed and thus doesn't work. Without a reference to external rules, this is just the old shield and spear paradox... \$\endgroup\$ – Icyfire Feb 15 '17 at 6:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Novak D&D 5e requires a certain amount of GM discretion. It is clear from the question that the querent understands immunity to antimagic field as protecting your spells from antimagic field. I make it clear in a nota bene that this is probably not the case in all games. As long as the immunity granted by Wish is relevant (i.e. Wish renders itself immune to AMF) there is no paradox-- AMF is not immune to wish. \$\endgroup\$ – Please stop being evil Feb 15 '17 at 20:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Icyfire THAT argument would be wrong because of the specific v.s. general rule on page 7, but at that point you are being silly. \$\endgroup\$ – Please stop being evil Feb 15 '17 at 20:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ @thedarkwanderer 5e no, it is clear that the querant understands the wish-granted immunity to anti-magic as a spell effect because he says exactly that. Spell effects are what get shut down by the anti-magic field. Simply saying "Immunity trumps shut-down" is not a compelling answer, it's just an assertion. Icyfire's "specific vs general" is a compelling argument. \$\endgroup\$ – Novak Feb 15 '17 at 20:59

Probably. There used to be an 8th level spell that allowed the caster to cast 1 single additional spell within the bounds of an anti-magic field. If you're playing with whatever source material includes that spell (it isn't core, and I couldn't find it when I searched just now because I don't remember the name), then the effects of wish should be equally limited since wish can duplicate 8th level spells. If you're not playing with whatever book that obscure spell is from then it's probably fine to use the rule you quoted (but your DM might get annoyed at his players going yeah, we'd rather not anti magic field today and put some tighter limits on it and that's probably okay too).

That said, in any case if you're using Wish to negate/overcome an antimagic field, THAT is what you're using it for. It's not, as another said, ubiquitously immune to antimagic fields when cast for another purpose. EG: You couldn't use a single casting of wish you cast spells inside the antimagic field AND replicate teleport to get away in a single action / casting.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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