tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post9066954038277207774..comments2024-03-29T10:34:22.739-04:00Comments on Delta's D&D Hotspot: Spells Through The Ages – Antimagic ShellDeltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-33563617556147681582021-02-24T15:32:26.280-05:002021-02-24T15:32:26.280-05:00Yowch! That's a ton of hurt right there!Yowch! That's a ton of hurt right there!Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-64481940570385562842021-02-18T21:02:21.467-05:002021-02-18T21:02:21.467-05:00My group has used AntiMagic Shell on occassion.
In...My group has used AntiMagic Shell on occassion.<br />In one campaign a high level MU was after us and we had a continuing battle for years. Until, Dersern Location, Teleport w/o Error, Anti Magic shell, with Wall of Force over it.<br />We killed him, cantrips to clean up the mess and teleport out... Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01796935123610118815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-47524641950844518042014-09-01T11:38:15.090-04:002014-09-01T11:38:15.090-04:00Some more uses from comments in a thread in Facebo...Some more uses from comments in a thread in Facebook. Perhaps the best interpretation is to look at it as a team-combo spell, protecting the party's fighters (not just the wizard alone), somewhat as seen with <i>Chainmail</i>'s large area-of-effect. Possibly best on a scroll.<br /><br />- General protection spell if you run into a monster with a powerful breath weapon, gaze, etc.<br />- High-level magical trap protection (e.g., Tomb of Horrors)<br />- For multiclass fighter-wizards engaging in melee (except that the canonical case, elves, aren't allowed high enough level to use it any of 0E-BX-1E).<br />- Fighting any magical creatures, making a "base" and allowing companion fighters to shoot or fight out of (incl. narrow corridor with ranged attacks).<br />- Locking down an enemy wizard before they can teleport away and letting companion fighters beat on them.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-90688923294036701332014-09-01T11:35:10.732-04:002014-09-01T11:35:10.732-04:00This pretty much matches my experience, too. Only ...This pretty much matches my experience, too. Only useful in specialized or contrived situations. If you could protect a whole troop of elite warriors in Chainmail, then that's a pretty neat combo. Maybe best on a scroll in the D&D context?Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-88447084716052881962014-08-29T13:30:24.524-04:002014-08-29T13:30:24.524-04:00I totally agree, their usage of those specifiers i...I totally agree, their usage of those specifiers is highly confusing. Although, now that I think of it: 3E has this rule that "If any portion of the spell's area would extend beyond the range, that area is wasted" (PHB p. 148). So that obligates them to set a range at least equal to the area for all spells, or else technically they'd get cut off. And compared to earlier editions that makes the entries really confusing to read -- I think that was a really cruddy rule to include in 3E. <br />Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-25289874807252462922014-08-28T21:58:19.947-04:002014-08-28T21:58:19.947-04:00I think you are right. We had our Cleric cast it o...I think you are right. We had our Cleric cast it on himself, I think other people in the party may have understood it as self only.<br /><br /><br />I hate the way they list those ranges. It is similar to lightning bolt which has a range of 120' and an area of effect of 120' line. In reality the range is 0, I don't know why the add the effect size to the range. Fireball does not say Long + 20'. As long as I'm ranting I'm not sure why it does not say Target: self only.Thiles Targonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02928790313150694394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-31740961265520959322014-08-27T12:53:41.292-04:002014-08-27T12:53:41.292-04:00See above; I really don't think the 3E languag...See above; I really don't think the 3E language allows casting it on someone else. It doesn't have a "target" line, and the book text is all in reference to the effect on "you" (the caster). Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-31052348932052277422014-08-27T12:52:39.924-04:002014-08-27T12:52:39.924-04:00By-the-book, I really don't think even the 3E ...By-the-book, I really don't think even the 3E version is intended to allow the spell to be cast on anyone else. That would require a "target" specifier (like in <i>protection from evil</i>, etc.) The book text actually is phrased as "An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you..." (3E PHB p. 175), where "you" is always used there from the perspective of the caster. The fact that it has both "range" and "area" is just a bit of a mangled specification, I think.<br /><br />So based on that, we're back to caster-only in all editions, and I fully agree it seems really hard to make that work in most cases.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-13579162642248868822014-08-27T12:37:50.201-04:002014-08-27T12:37:50.201-04:00Hey Jon, thanks for that. I do have Chainmail 3rd ...Hey Jon, thanks for that. I do have Chainmail 3rd Edition (7th printing, April 1979), so I'm always guessing as to what was in the earlier editions. Is there a listing somewhere of the original 8 magic spells in fantasy Chainmail (so I don't keep making this mistake)?<br /><br />Although it seems extremely curious why the CM version would get that large area (5") and short duration which is out-of-sych with all the other editions, if it came after OD&D.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-30367303264608989692014-08-26T01:35:13.055-04:002014-08-26T01:35:13.055-04:00@ Jon:
Ah...I must have a later edition of Chainm...@ Jon:<br /><br />Ah...I must have a later edition of Chainmail. Still, it seems an odd spell for a non-wargame. I wonder what was the inspiration for the spell.JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03263662621289630246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-76438026929815730082014-08-25T20:04:54.102-04:002014-08-25T20:04:54.102-04:00AMS only appeared in Chainmail after D&D had c...AMS only appeared in Chainmail after D&D had come out; that is, as of 3rd edition Chainmail (1975). So the OD&D usage should be first, with the Chainmail Fantasy version coming second.<br /><br />Chainmail 2nd (1972) has only eight spells, ten if we count the default "Fireball" and "Lightning Bolt." Chainmail 3rd doubled the list and radically changed the spell system, introducing "complexity" and many other concepts.Jon Petersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09824427209908111302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-90950340744106385912014-08-25T19:47:28.795-04:002014-08-25T19:47:28.795-04:00Closest I've gotten is Otiluke's Spheres, ...Closest I've gotten is Otiluke's Spheres, in actual play.<br /><br />I agree that the 3E version seems to offer the most utility. (I'd also say the "winking out" thing, rather than being "kindergarteny," has interesting implications for how summoning works and what it means.) The fact that you can cast it on someone else within 10' alone means its major weakness can be easily avoided: just cast it on a more martial character and send them in to take down any enemy spellcasters.Confanityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10361443460498670841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-55308515490609998172014-08-25T15:39:05.372-04:002014-08-25T15:39:05.372-04:00We used it in 3rd edition a couple times when figh...We used it in 3rd edition a couple times when fighting beholders. The fighter types could take the beholders down without worrying about disintegrate, and the wizards positioned somewhere else, could take down his minions with spells. In this case it was a Cleric that cast it on himself, not a wizard. 3rd edition lists a range, so it seems like you could cast it on your fighter, or directly on the thing you want to take the magic from. <br /><br />As a wizard self only kind of spell, it would not be as useful, although, in many parties when facing a beholder it still might be a good trade to lose your magic, to make the beholder lose his magic. It never occurred to me before, but the same would be true of most level draining undead (assuming the requirement of having a magic weapon to hurt the undead would be suppressed as well, or you just made them invulnerable)<br /><br />I think I like the concept of an actual shell best. Spells abilities work inside, but can’t cross. That sounds best to me, but could be hard to make work out. What happens to magical weapons, can they cross, if no, does that mean anyone carrying any magic items can’t cross the shell, etc etc etc?<br /><br />All in all, I like the shell best, but think the 3rd edition rule is the most workable.Thiles Targonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02928790313150694394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-44302624550550998242014-08-25T10:21:25.320-04:002014-08-25T10:21:25.320-04:00Anti-magic shell was never used (that I can rememb...Anti-magic shell was never used (that I can remember) in my old campaigns due to the plethora of more useful spells at 6th level: control weather, death, disintegrate, flesh-to-stone (and its reverse), reincarnation...all took precedence over AM shell. <br /><br />Part of this had to do with the nature of the challenges for characters at high level: encounters with big-ass monsters need spells that can take 'em down fast. If you have secondary consideration, it's for recovery of the party cleric (reincarnation, stone-to-flesh) to keep the party going. High level MUs (the thing against which AM shell defends) aren't as dangerous as one might fear because A) high level PCs have the HPs to absorb damage spells, and the god saves to resist "auto-kill" spells, and B) enemy MUs are still vulnerable to the fighter melee attack (magic weapons and high attacks = disrupted spells and a quick-dying mage).<br /><br />As with some other spells (notably “cacodaemon”), anti-magic shell would appear to be more useful/appropriate as a lower level spell. I didn’t bother to include it (nor a facsimile) in my Five Ancient Kingdoms game.<br /><br />Anti-magic shell makes much more sense in the game of Chainmail. In terms of tabletop wargaming, being able to throw up a 5” shell (in other words, a globe) that prevents all magic from entering its diameter is pretty useful…especially as wizards in Chainmail can cast an unlimited number of auto-kill fireballs and lightning bolts that have a line-o-sight range. In a way, it’s an ability to manipulate terrain during the game (creating a barrier that blocks magical effects), much as hallucinatory terrain can be used to block line-o-sight archers, and cloudkill creates a “terrain piece” that can assault troops. The complexity levels reflect this: hallucinatory terrain only lasts till someone touches it (complexity 4) whereas actually moving terrain (permanently changing the tabletop) is complexity 6…which, like anti-magic shell, requires a wizard to roll a “9” (on 2D6) to successfully cast.<br /><br />On a related note, I’ve always found the beholder’s “anti-magic ray” (in AD&D 1E) the most difficult thing to understand and rule on. Where’s the explanation for THAT?JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03263662621289630246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-8130655112602729142014-08-25T09:07:26.810-04:002014-08-25T09:07:26.810-04:00I have only ever seen Anti-Magic of any kind used ...I have only ever seen Anti-Magic of any kind used as DM fiat. I wonder if that is not how this spell came to be. <br />Of course, we rarely got to high enough level for a lot of this stuff.<br />If we keep it as a personal/extremely close range spell then I think we should go back to the "shell" interpretation. <br />It can act as a barrier for summoned/conjured/charmed creatures.<br />Golems etc I would give a pass. I always looked at them as "Instantaneous" magic over "Permanent" magic, meaning once the creation is complete, they simply "are". But that is a whole other discussion.Baquieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08357103428591599364noreply@blogger.com