>AAAAKKKKSHUALLY, ANTI MAGIC FIELD HURTS MARTIALS MORE THAN IT DOES CASTERS

t. Things that have never happened in any game, ever.

>>95861404 (OP)
Range. At least in 3.5, AMF is only a 10 ft. radius emanation and doesn't affect Instantaneous Conjuration spells, so a LOT of plinking options remain in place for casters, whereas the overwhelmingly-melee-because-of-DPR Martials have to get in range to have all their items shut off utterly crippling them. With harsh enough permissions, they can do literally nothing without their items.

>>95861570
Use a Bow, assclown.

>>95861890
Damage goes off a cliff because the feats are shit and the arrows probably intended to make up for it are HORRIBLY expensive.

>>95861890
Show me a bow build for 3.5 that can keep up with melee damage that doesn't rely on spells.

>>95861404 (OP)
>OP finding a group that can tolerate his faggotry for more than a single session.

>>95861890
>use a bow
>with all of your weapon enchantments gone
>with your arrows reverting to material only
>with any size enhancements gone, so you don't even have that
Archers without those do less damage than an orb spammer. A lot less. So yes, martials get hurt by AMF a lot more than casters do.

>>95862114
>Show me a bow build for 3.5
its 20 years old

>>95862114
Why should ranged damage keep up with melee damage?

>>95862360
Because it's feat taxed way in excess of melee, is MAD unless you took Crossbow Sniper, provokes AoOs when done in close quarters, and has to engage with cover rules. Why shouldn't it?

>>95862368
If you can't figure out the natural advantages of range then you're too retarded to be having this conversation.

>>95862355
nta but the previous anon (>>95861570 ) had literally mentioned 3.5

>>95862373
If you can't understand that those natural advantages don't come into play often enough in 3.5 and don't have the same value they do in real life, you're too retarded to have this conversation.

>>95862382
Looks like you mistook TTRPGs for video games. Classic blunder.

>>95862387
I understood how the game works. You didn't. Your argument was stupid from the first word.

>>95862399
You don't understand how the entire medium works, what the fuck could you know about a game?

>>95862405
By playing it instead of pretending that the words in the book don't mean anything.

>>95862411
If you're playing TTRPGs like video games then you aren't actually playing them.

Imagine being too retarded to take advantage of superior range.

>>95862373
>trying to use real life thought process that were not modeled in to the game

>>95862419
Wounds do things in real life. One shot can kill someone. Wounds don't do things in D&D, and by the time an AMF comes up, one shot isn't killing anything or doing more than scratching them. Stop trying to appeal to realism in a game that is intentionally unrealistic.

>>95862430
Damn, you actually are mentally disabled.

>>95862348
...Right, same thing that fucks melee with >10 ft. Reach also fucks the projectiles!

>>95862360
In addition to >>95862368's points, the price and weight of ammunition is a significant drag. While the positioning insensitivity and risk reduction are significant benefits, the sheer number of layers of lessened output make it INCREDIBLY difficult to justify over just slapping a high Fly speed on a charge build.

>>95862387
The fundamental nature of the complaint is about the overt rules being unfavorable in counter-intuitive ways, so the subject is specifically an overlapping matter of poor game design. Though a DM "can" override the rules in question or simply contrive circumstances where they don't apply, this does not change that the standard layed out in the books you were expected to pay for holds this dysfunction and so the DM NEEDING to break from the standard for a good experience is a failure of the PRODUCT.

>>95862419
Firstly, not all enemies are melee beatsticks. Secondly, ranged Martial characters have absolutely fuck-all mobility to KEEP the range, unless you take on the fragility of a mount. Thirdly, the "range advantage" is aggressively impractical to put on a table as a great deal of the system assumes. Fourthly, keeping fights in the massive open fields needed is NOT UP TO YOU.

>>95862446
>>>/v/
Should be more up your speed.

>>95862449
It's a roleplaying GAME. They have rules and functions.

>>95861890
>fighter bow damage against a creature in an AMF: like 43 over a full attack with every archery boosting feat you can throw at the problem, like Imp. Rapid Shot, Ranged Weapon Mastery, etc
>orb damage against a creature in an AMF: 42 with no feats at all.

That's a dedicated archer. What do you think is going to happen when your bow is your backup with your stats not built for archery?

>>95862449
I repeat:
>Though a DM "can" override the rules in question or simply contrive circumstances where they don't apply, this does not change that the standard layed out in the books you were expected to pay for holds this dysfunction and so the DM NEEDING to break from the standard for a good experience is a failure of the PRODUCT.
It's not freeform, it's tabletop. Heavy emphasis on the table making 20 turns standard move speed of distance cumbersome in practice.

>>95862545
I repeat: you are too retarded for these games.

>>95862549
Do the words on the page mean anything?

Yes or no?

>>95862549
It's not retardation. It's a refusal of the "just homebrew/reflavor/Rule Zero it!" bullshit because if I am expected to PAY for a set of RULES I expect the RULES to FUCKING WORK.

Again, it is not freeform, it is tabletop. The freedom absent in vidya is irrelevant because that is NOT UP TO THE PLAYER. So the INSTANT I encounter a DM who's unaware of the issue, incompetent at compensating, or thinks it's fine, I am stuck with prospective archers returning to the shit status of the rules that were written for them.

As I do not want to preface all attempts at starting a campaign with a laundry-list of not-in-the-book conceits to tell if an archer works or not, I am left with relying on what IS in the book as the conceits. Because it's much easier to ask about things that work in that standard than things that don't.

Your counter-argument does not function in the slightest for any kind of pick-up game, and as these are the fundamental purpose of playing popular systems this renders them again irrelevant to the context of the thread.

>>95862592
It has nothing to do with homebrewing you drooling retard.

>>95862631
Given the hard rules fail to support it outside very narrow circumstances a bow-using Martial has fuck-all ability to dictate, yes it does.

>>95862675
>still chanting his retard mantra

>>95862675
Anon, stop taking bait from a shitposter.

>>95862714
>I got caught and I'm going to double down
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Shut up retard.

I'm so fucking glad I never touched D&D seeing what it did to your brains.

>>95862001
>>95862114
>>95862348
>>95862530

>all this cope

>>95863068

>>95862348
That doesn't hurt the martial more, you fuck-stupid shit-eating moron. The martial has a bow, which all of his stats and feats support. The caster has fuck-all if he's a Sorcerer or Wizard. If he's a half-caster he might fair a little better, still worse than a pure martial like a Fighter or Barbarian or Rogue.

Go smoke crack and say retarded shit somewhere else, you're embarrassing.

>>95863085
That was actually my first reply ITT, keep coping retard. You are laughably stupid, so much it hurts my fuckin brain, lmao.

>>95863086
Yes it does and your impotent raging and doubling down does not make you right.
>The martial has a bow, which all of his stats and feats support.
Stats and feats are not enough to make your bow useful. You're also presuming they're built for archery and not switching to it out of lack of a better option. You need weapon enchantments and buffs.
>The caster has fuck-all if he's a Sorcerer or Wizard.
Instant Conjurations say what?

>>95863116
>Yes it does and your impotent raging and doubling down does not make you right.
Stop assuming everyone is the same person because you can't handle the truth.

>Stats and feats are not enough to make your bow useful. You're also presuming they're built for archery and not switching to it out of lack of a better option. You need weapon enchantments and buffs.
Uh, yea it is.
>take fighter 4
>dip into Scout
>take another dip into Order of the Bow Initiate
>get a custom made +5 Strength composite longbow
>get Adamantine arrows

I now maintain parity for the majority of the game. Stop sucking.

In real life people went to mages for anti magic. Mages were the anti mages. Only magicians can defend against magic.

>>95863153
That build fucking sucks and doesn't maintain parity with anything other than some shitter sword and board Fighter. Falls apart against anything immune to precision damage, falls apart if you're not allowed within 30 feet, never does good damage to begin with because you're shooting one shot a round with joke tier bonus damage attached. A Swift Hunter Scout/Ranger is better in every single way and that still performs poorly against AMFs.

>>95863180
which is why no attempt was ever made to arrest and execute suspected witches, because conventional authorities did not believe they had the power to simply march into a witches home, drag them out and burn them at the stake

>>95863181
Holy SHIT you're fucking RETARDED. I'm sorry but you have absolutely no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

>Falls apart against anything immune to precision damage
Precision damage is not a thing, retard, you're thinking of critical hits and non-living targets.

>falls apart if you're not allowed within 30 feet
That only applies to Ranged Precision, not the Scout's Skirmish, which only requires I move 10 feet before attacking, which stacks within 30 feet since its a standard action.

>never does good damage to begin with because you're shooting one shot a round with joke tier bonus damage attached
Wrong, manyshot allows 2 attacks as a standard action.

>A Swift Hunter Scout/Ranger is better in every single way and that still performs poorly against AMFs.
AMFs don’t disable class features or mundane gear, and with a high BAB + Strength you hit reliably with zero need for magic. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Now go thump him with your stick, gandalf, lmao.

>>95863153
Okay, so, at level 11, assuming 18 starting STR and DEX and stat boosting gear, with Fighter 4/Scout 2/OotBI 5, you attack once a round at +22 and do 1d8+9+1d6+3d8, while shooting adamantine ammunition for no reason other than DR because it adds an enhancement bonus to attack rolls that you already have from a masterwork weapon.

That's 30.5 damage. Orb of X is a ranged touch attack dealing 11d6, or 38.5 damage, with a save or lose effect that bypasses the AMF attached. You're doing less than the core Fighter full attacking. You're doing less than the Sorcerer or Wizard throwing a 2 spell levels old spell out. It's barely more than the 1st level Lesser Orb of X's 5d8 and with tighter range restrictions.

Why did you think this was good?

>>95863180
In real life, people beheaded and burned mages.

>>95863320
>Orb of X
Already disqualified because it's magical. Read the thread dipshit.

>>95863261
>Precision damage is not a thing
Yes it is. >Regardless of the number of arrows you fire, you apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) only once.
> not the Scout's Skirmish, which only requires I move 10 feet before attacking,
>Scouts can apply this extra damage to ranged attacks made while skirmishing, but only if the target is within 30 feet.
>Wrong, manyshot allows 2 attacks as a standard action.
At which point why the fuck did you take Order of the Bow Initiate, retard? They're conflicting actions.
>and with a high BAB + Strength you hit reliably with zero need for magic.
No you don't. AC scales faster than BAB and Strength do.

>>95863336
>(The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)
Guess what they are?

>>95863347
Still waiting for you to come up with a better build for a caster-only.

>>95863358
>I cast this specific spell before being effected by AMF! Hah!
So, you're theory relies entirely on premeditating an unforeseeable event?

Yea, caster is beyond fucked and raped by satan in hell for at least 9 million years. What a shitty retarded strategy.

>>95863383
I don't need to. Orb of Acid or whichever flavor of orb you took instead outdamages your build from level 7 all the way to 20 without spending a single feat, class feature, or metamagic on it. Just the spell slot.

>>95863398
>Area: 10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you
Walk out of it retard. The problem is that martials have to attack into the AMF and lose core parts of their progression to do it.

>>95863414
AMF debunks it. You lose. Next.

>>95863421
>Area
>10 ft radius
It was activated by the illithids within a 10,000 square mile radius, next argument.
>b-b-but that's not in the rules

OH, OKAY, so you're saying that the Beholder's 150 foot cone of AMF is now only 10 because it said so in that specific spell block? LOL! Go play some video games man, RPG's aint for you.

>>95863428
I accept your concession that your argument was wrong, you made a bad archer that can't compete with a middling 4th level spell in damage, and that you were the same poster all along. Get fucked, retard.

>>95863436
>gets proven wrong
>throws a tantrum
>makes a strawman to now pretend he won the argument

>"GET FUCKED RETARD

Lol, so fucking salty because his wand jockey got buttraped. This is what happens when you make a class your entire personality. You get burned. Hard. Thanks for admitting you lost.

>>95863436
>middling 4th level spell
I thought the discussion was about the fight taking place in an AMF? You can cast spells in AMF now?

>>95863461
You can, with the right options, but it's not a discussion about fighting in an AMF. It's a discussion about a fight with an AMF present. For martials there's no distinction unless you're playing a Weeaboo Fightan Magic class with IHS and can turn them off, because they can't engage an enemy with an AMF on it without the AMF impacting their weapon in some way and potentially their gear. For casters, there is a huge distinction because AMF has a defined range, needs line of effect to work, and doesn't stop all spells.

>>95863086
>which all of his stats and feats support
The kneecapping of missing +X Enhancement and damage Special Abilities remains, as does the issue that they must split between Strength and Dexterity.

>>95863261
>Precision damage is not a thing, retard
It's one of those weird errata tidbits to save on page-space that never got back-ported as a proper "keyword". There's enough of these that a true 3.75 would have been entirely sensible, but Hasbro was trying to turn D&D into a board game brand so WotC went REALLY weird directions scrambling to keep it a TTRPG.

>That only applies to Ranged Precision, not the Scout's Skirmish
Complete Adventurer page 12:
>Scouts can apply this extra damage to ranged attacks made while skirmishing, but only if the target is within 30 feet.

>Wrong, manyshot allows 2 attacks as a standard action.
As opposed to the 5 from Rapidshot, which has better accuracy.

>with a high BAB + Strength
Again, bows use Dexterity for accuracy, so their ability modifier is smaller or at higher expense than melee characters to do less. Even with the Dex-to-damage options it's only 1x instead of 1.5x.

>>95863398
No, it's relying on the pretty obvious interpretation that the technically-not-magical projectile can be aimed into it perfectly fine.

>>95863428
>It was activated by the illithids within a 10,000 square mile radius
No official rule to create it, and this is what Dead Magic areas are for that have the important distinction of not shutting down Supernatural abilities. Plus your archer lose their ability enhancers this way, which with the static mundane Composite Bow values slaps you with an extra -4 to attack rolls for insufficient Strength.

>OH, OKAY, so you're saying that the Beholder's 150 foot cone of AMF is now only 10 because it said so in that specific spell block?
No, because the Beholder actually says it has a 150 ft. AMF cone. The Half-Golem Voidmind would cover a lot of similar bases, I guess...

>>95863428
Line of effect.

>>95863552
>You can, with the right options,
No, you can't. Not in RAW. Artifacts and literal gods can, but you can't.

>>95864988
>line of effect
AMF, mechanically, is a suppressive effect that can be applied on any scale the DM wishes it to be scaled to, similar to fire, acid, electricity, turning, or any effect within the game world. I've personally seen it be used more as a trap-trigger than as someone throwing it as a usable spell.

>>95864647
>No official rule to create it
They’re created via DM-controlled elements like artifacts, godlike beings, planar anomalies, all of which which are supported by the rules, and even so, the DM has carte blanche to make any and ever spell he deems he wishes to exist, via the DMG, so yes, it is supported by the DMG RAW.

>>95865246
>AMF, mechanically, is a suppressive effect that can be applied on any scale the DM wishes it to be scaled to
I again refer to Dead Magic, an environmental effect meant to be applied at arbitrary scales.

>the DM has carte blanche to make any and ever spell he deems he wishes to exist
Then you're not talking about what's written in the book, but fiat bullshit that by its nature of not being written in the book is irrelevant for discussion about what "the game" is.

Yes, this is only a part of the TTRPG experience as it's disengaged from the particulars of scenarios, but it's the main one that actually functions between tables to go from a hobby a single friend-group gets up to in the basement of whoever's living with their mother to a COMMUNITY able to have meaningful discussion with online randos.

If I wanted this, I'd be pushing my shitbrew. I've deleted multiple paragraphs of gap-filling homebrew discussion in this conversation, SPECIFICALLY to stay on target with shitting on you deflecting with "the DM can say thing not in the books happens".

>>95865199
Wrong answer. Invoke Magic lets you cast 4th or lower and Initiate of Mystra lets you cast anything in an AMF or dead magic zone.

>>95865360
NTA, but, Initiate of Mystra does not allow you to cast anything in an AMF. What it ACTUALLY does is:

"You can cast spells in areas affected by wild magic, and you are never affected by wild magic zones or wild surges."

This feat does not apply to antimagic fields or dead magic zones. It specifically helps you ignore wild magic penalties — like those on Nathlan, or certain planar anomalies.

>>95865307
>I again refer to Dead Magic, an environmental effect meant to be applied at arbitrary scales.
And I'm referring to AMF....What don't you seem to get? I'm the DM here, what I say goes. If I want AMF throughout the entire universe, I get AMF throughout the entire universe.

>Then you're not talking about what's written in the book, but fiat bullshit that by its nature of not being written in the book is irrelevant for discussion about what "the game" is.
Yes, I quite literally am. Everything I have said thus far is supported RAW by the DM. You have no argument.

>Yes, this is only a part of the TTRPG experience as it's disengaged from the particulars of scenarios, but it's the main one that actually functions between tables to go from a hobby a single friend-group gets up to in the basement of whoever's living with their mother to a COMMUNITY able to have meaningful discussion with online randos.
Nothing but random meaningless jabber-jawing.

>If I wanted this, I'd be pushing my shitbrew. I've deleted multiple paragraphs of gap-filling homebrew discussion in this conversation, SPECIFICALLY to stay on target with shitting on you deflecting with "the DM can say thing not in the books happens".
That's nice, but I'm the DM and it's banned.

>>95865360
NTA, but, Initiate of Mystra does not allow you to cast anything in an AMF. What it ACTUALLY does is:

"You can cast spells in areas affected by wild magic, and you are never affected by wild magic zones or wild surges."

This feat does not apply to antimagic fields or dead magic zones. It specifically helps you ignore wild magic penalties — like those on Nathlan, or certain planar anomalies.

Besides:
DMG p. 35, 297, and Manual of the Planes p. 64 all say the DM may change how magic functions, create “variant antimagic,” or rule that some items work regardless. So I change AMF to disable Invoke Magic. Via RAW, you're fucked.

>>95865307
>I again refer to Dead Magic, an environmental effect meant to be applied at arbitrary scales.
And I'm referring to AMF....What don't you seem to get? I'm the DM here, what I say goes. If I want AMF throughout the entire universe, I get AMF throughout the entire universe.

>Then you're not talking about what's written in the book, but fiat bullshit that by its nature of not being written in the book is irrelevant for discussion about what "the game" is.
Yes, I quite literally am. Everything I have said thus far is supported RAW by the DM. You have no argument.

>Yes, this is only a part of the TTRPG experience as it's disengaged from the particulars of scenarios, but it's the main one that actually functions between tables to go from a hobby a single friend-group gets up to in the basement of whoever's living with their mother to a COMMUNITY able to have meaningful discussion with online randos.
Nothing but random meaningless jabber-jawing.

>If I wanted this, I'd be pushing my shitbrew. I've deleted multiple paragraphs of gap-filling homebrew discussion in this conversation, SPECIFICALLY to stay on target with shitting on you deflecting with "the DM can say thing not in the books happens".
That's nice, but I'm the DM and it's banned.

>>95865360
DMG p. 35, 297, and Manual of the Planes p. 64 all say the DM may change how magic functions, create “variant antimagic,” or rule that some items work regardless. So I change AMF to disable Invoke Magic. Via RAW, you're fucked.

>>95865307
>I again refer to Dead Magic, an environmental effect meant to be applied at arbitrary scales.
And I'm referring to AMF....What don't you seem to get? I'm the DM here, what I say goes. If I want AMF throughout the entire universe, I get AMF throughout the entire universe.

>Then you're not talking about what's written in the book, but fiat bullshit that by its nature of not being written in the book is irrelevant for discussion about what "the game" is.
Yes, I quite literally am. Everything I have said thus far is supported RAW by the DM. You have no argument.

>Yes, this is only a part of the TTRPG experience as it's disengaged from the particulars of scenarios, but it's the main one that actually functions between tables to go from a hobby a single friend-group gets up to in the basement of whoever's living with their mother to a COMMUNITY able to have meaningful discussion with online randos.
Nothing but random meaningless jabber-jawing.

>If I wanted this, I'd be pushing my shitbrew. I've deleted multiple paragraphs of gap-filling homebrew discussion in this conversation, SPECIFICALLY to stay on target with shitting on you deflecting with "the DM can say thing not in the books happens".
That's nice, but I'm the DM and it's banned.

>>95865360
First off, if that's your excuse, it's a shitty one, since it still hampers the caster by making ever spell they cast require a check regardless, and if you're going with that as the reason for why the Martial is more hindered in an AMF than a caster, the Martial has access to better, more powerful equipment, that functions more reliably, and you're still fucked.

Secondly, DMG p. 35, 297, and Manual of the Planes p. 64 all say the DM may change how magic functions, create “variant antimagic,” or rule that some items work regardless. So I change AMF to disable Invoke Magic. Via RAW, you're fucked.

>>95865307
>I again refer to Dead Magic, an environmental effect meant to be applied at arbitrary scales.
And I'm referring to AMF....What don't you seem to get? I'm the DM here, what I say goes. If I want AMF throughout the entire universe, I get AMF throughout the entire universe.

>Then you're not talking about what's written in the book, but fiat bullshit that by its nature of not being written in the book is irrelevant for discussion about what "the game" is.
Yes, I quite literally am. Everything I have said thus far is supported RAW by the DM. You have no argument.

>Yes, this is only a part of the TTRPG experience as it's disengaged from the particulars of scenarios, but it's the main one that actually functions between tables to go from a hobby a single friend-group gets up to in the basement of whoever's living with their mother to a COMMUNITY able to have meaningful discussion with online randos.
Nothing but random meaningless jabber-jawing.

>If I wanted this, I'd be pushing my shitbrew. I've deleted multiple paragraphs of gap-filling homebrew discussion in this conversation, SPECIFICALLY to stay on target with shitting on you deflecting with "the DM can say thing not in the books happens".
That's nice, but I'm the DM and it's banned.

>>95865870
>equipment that functions more reliably
>in an AMF
No.

>>95865883
>Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this

https://dnd.arkalseif.info/spells/players-handbook-v35--6/antimagic-field--2301/index.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com#google_vignette

So alls a martial needs to do is find/buy an artifact, or an item created or sustained directly by a deity, and they're golden.

>>95862411
You must be new to TTRPG's.

>>95865997
So yes, you're pretending the words in the book don't mean anything.

>>95865929
There is nothing martial specific to artifacts.

>>95866041
No, I'm following the letter of the book. What are YOU doing, exactly?

>>95866108
>there is nothing martial specific to artifacts
>what is Hammer of Thunderbolts

Giga-stupid.

>>95866739
Not martial specific.

>>95866771
It's a warhammer, which is a martial weapon, so yes, it is.

>>95861404 (OP)
This is one of those things where I feel like mage players try and gaslight the party and the DM into believing it so they don't actually do it, not that it's actually true.

>AMF shuts down a fighter
>they still have 22-24 Strength
>Full BAB
>all their feats for their equipment and skills
>Their armor class is still at or above 20 naturally
>Still has their weapons that they can use to some effect, or even full effect if its mundane-extraordinary/alchemical

>Meanwhile, the caster has no flight, no teleportation, no AC buff, no protections, no contingencies, no utility, no invisibility, and no save-or-die fallback.

Yea, the fighter is in REAL trouble here guys!

>>95866839
unless they're fighting CR 1 bandits they're all pretty much fucked, yes

>>95866852
>fighter still has full BAB, feats, and probably higher base AC than a mage with enchantments
>rogue can still flank, trip, feint, and has mundane stealth.
>cleric might still fight as a decent off-tank.

The wizard is the one who goes from battlefield control engine to bathrobe civilian. Unless you spec into something super niche from some supplement that still extraordinarily limits you, your wizard is the one eating shit.

>>95866839
20 AC doesn't mean shit by the levels AMFs are thrown around at. Monster AC is built around the idea that you have an enhancement bonus to stats and your weapon.

>>95866898
AMF flattens the playing field, it doesn’t skew it in the martial's disfavor. The martial has a body; the wizard has a spellbook. Guess which one still works in an AMF?

>>95866895
Your Rogue is not making Strength checks and feinting is shit.

>>95866895
>fighter still has full BAB, feats, and probably higher base AC than a mage with enchantments
all of which is completely meaningless in the face of level appropriate threats

>>95866918
No, it pretty clearly does, because the martial has no choice but to eat the AMF in some fashion while the Wizard doesn't have that problem. Why stay in the AMF?

>>95866921
Remove only magic from martials, and the fighter is still strong; remove only magic from casters, and they’re crippled. AMF is a blunt tool, but unequal impact: martials lose a bit; casters lose everything.

>level appropriate threats
Without magic, the Fighter still has more than a large enough health pool and good enough of a BAB to hit reliably. At level 10, a Fighter has a 50% chance of hitting anything with a 30 AC with his +10 BAB. The Wizard needs a natural 20 to hit anything with an AC of 25. The Fighter will do just fine.

>>95866953
>Remove only magic from martials, and the fighter is still strong
not strong enough to handle on level threats
>Without magic, the Fighter still has more than a large enough health pool and good enough of a BAB to hit reliably
no he doesn't

you've never played at those levels and it shows

>>95866938
>Hah, AMF isn't a problem for wizards, I just won't get caught in it!
Genius idea Aristotle!

>>95866958
Walk out of it. It has a 10 ft radius around a creature. Just fucking walk out of it instead of being a retard.

>>95866957
>Without magic, the Fighter still has more than a large enough health pool and good enough of a BAB to hit reliably
>no he doesn't
How doesn't it? What are you pitting him against that is so inconcievable for him to hit when he has a +10 BAB, +6 Strength Bonus to hit (minimum), and +2 minimum from both weapon focus feats? That's +18 - 20 without any magic. What the fuck is he fighting where he won't be able to hit it with a chance of at least 50 percent? Please, enlighten me. Maybe DAGON?

>You've never played at those levels
Vague generalities.

>>95866987
The latter half of the game is not built around the idea that you hit enemies 50% of the time. It's built around the idea that you hit 95% of the time with your first attack and your iteratives decline in accuracy. If you can't do that, your damage nosedives way below expected values. +6 STR is also not the minimum for a level 10 Fighter without magic items. That's the maximum.

>>95867002
> That's the maximum.
No, that's the MINIMUM. Assuming he didn't pick a Half-Giant, Goliath, or Half-orc, he would normally have a Strength sitting somewhere around 22-24, and that's also assuming he didn't find a Manual of Gainful Exercise somewhere down the line, which could boost him up to 25-26.

>>95867030
No, he wouldn't. That's your score after stat enhancement items. You don't have those in an AMF, you're lucky to have 20.

>>95867040
>that's your score after enhancement items
He rolls an 18 and puts that into Strength. Picks Goliath, that immediately puts him into 22. At levels 4 and 8 he puts both points into Strength, putting him at 24.

You've never played the game.

>>95867052
Congrats, you're shittier than the level 11 Fighter you'd be if you weren't a Goliath.

>>95867052
actual retard

>>95867073
The stat bonuses and the ability to use one size category larger weapons with zero penalties kind of cancels that out...In fact, it almost out-right exceeds it.

>>95867079
Mmm, riveting. Tell me, where and what was retarded about my post? I'll wait retard.

>>95867104
No, not really, an extra iterative is much better than a small attack and damage lead and so are the BAB +12 feats 1 level later.

>>95866958
Wizards who are spooked enough about AMF can set up contingencies and stuff that triggers if they're about to get caught by one. Including the old meme of
>The AMF suppresses the Shrink Item spell on my pointy wizard hat, causing it to revert to a giant adamantine cone that falls around me and blocks area of effect; I then cast Teleport to flee combat

(which is pretty dumb, why do bookworms get more ways to react quickly in combat than hardened warriors do?)

>>95867126
This tangent is getting full of copium from you being proven wrong and getting quite butthurt about it. Not my fault you're uninformed.

>>95867194
This is retarded white-room nonsense. The AMF suppresses magical effects, including Shrink Item, but it doesn't automatically trigger the object's reversion. For the object to revert, the conditions specified in the Shrink Item spell must be met, which typically involve the object being tossed onto a solid surface or a command word being spoken. And it can't revert back from a command word, because the AMF is suppressing it, and it can't "revert back to normal size" after being tossed, because the magic trigger is suppressed.

>>95867201
Have still yet to be proved wrong. The only thing I'm butthurt about is that you were never aborted because your grasp of the rules is about as tenuous as your ability to read.

>>95867220
>>95867194
Secondly, adamantine doesn't even block the AOE of an AMF.

>>95867235
Yes it does. Any line of effect breaker blocks AMF. It's an emanation.

>>95867221
>have still yet to be proved wrong

>>95867002
+6 STR is also not the minimum for a level 10 Fighter without magic items. That's the maximum.

>>95867040
>No, he wouldn't. That's your score after stat enhancement items. You don't have those in an AMF, you're lucky to have 20.

>>95867052
He rolls an 18 and puts that into Strength. Picks Goliath, that immediately puts him into 22. At levels 4 and 8 he puts both points into Strength, putting him at 24.

You are free to cope now.

>>95861404 (OP)
You know it's funny, I don't mind amfs in vidya, but in tt they are pretty much exclusively the sign of a DM who loves gotchas, and those people ought to be avoided.

>>95867238
Yea...It's an emanation. You would still be within the emanation zone. It doesn't matter if it's "blocked" by anything. It can't be blocked. You could be surrounded by a mithril wall of invulnerability and it would still effect you.

>>95867220
If a spell is suppressed, its effect is no longer in effect, and no, that's not the only way to unshrink an item. The duration running out will do it. Dispelling it will do it.

>>95867261
Wrong.
>A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, even including creatures that you can’t see. It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners).
>An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres.

>>95867241
Moving the goalpost to an LA race isn't proving me wrong, it's changing the discussion for no reason.

>>95867266
It doesn't matter what argument you come up with, the premise is wrong to begin with. You can't "block" an AMF with objects.

>>95867275
The spell's description explicitly states that "no one can cast spells, take Magic actions, or create other magical effects inside the aura, and those things can’t target or otherwise affect anything inside it."

Now shut the fuck up you god damn annoying retard.

>>95867286
Yes you can. Anything that gives you total cover against the source blocks AMF. Walls are objects and definitionally block AMF.

>>95867283
>I've never been proven wrong
>I prove that you've been proven wrong
>this is somehow me moving the goalposts

>>95867291
NO, YOU CAN'T. READ THE FUCK RULES YOU GOD DAMN NIGGER.

>>95867289
>>95867289
>>95867289
>>95867289
>>95867289

IT SAYS ANYTHING INSIDE THE AURA. YOU ARE INSIDE THE AURA. STOP BEING A STUPID RETARDED NIGGER.

THE EMANATION NATURE OF AMF MEANS THAT THE AREA OF EFFECT EXTENDS FROM THE POINT OF ORIGIN, WHICH IS THE CASTER, OUTWARD IN ALL DIRECTIONS. YOU ARE SO FUCKING STUPID.

>>95867289
What does that have to do with anything? If a magical effect is suppressed, it ceases functioning for the duration it's suppressed. The effect of Shrink Item is that an item is smaller for its duration.

>>95867306
Why the fuck would the Wizard, who is trying to dodge the effects of AMF, be the one casting AMF? If the Wizard wanted to cast AMF and ignore the effects that's what Extraordinary Spell Aim or Archmage is for.

>>95867315
I don't know, I didn't design the fucking game, that's what the rules say.

>>95867325
The scenario is someone else casting AMF with the Wizard in the area, not the Wizard dropping an AMF and being surprised when he can't cast spells. Get total cover against the source of the AMF, the AMF stops affecting you.

>>95862373
No version of D&D that has builds also runs combat encounters at long enough ranges for those advantages to come into play, and even if by some chance your DM goes out of his way to make them matter you're still getting feat taxed to hell and back to almost maybe sometimes as good as the melee attacker half your level..

>>95867366
>>>/v/
Seriously, you'll have way more fun there.

>>95867378
>understanding systems is... VIDEO GAMES! go play VIDEO GAMES instead!
No.

>>95867390
Presented with a world of literally limitless possiblities, the only thing you can conceive of is walking forward and attacking until you drop dead.

You're an imbecile.

>>95867338
>Get total cover against the source of the AMF, the AMF stops affecting you.
That's not how it works. Anything within the aura automatically stops working. You would have to leave the AMF, or use Invoke Magic or take Initiate of Mystra, and even then it wouldn't be gauranteed.

>>95867397
While I agree with you generally, that he's a wand jockey, and he only understands the absolute nature of rules and lacks any understanding of nuance or creativity due to his card-game-esque spell slot class, this is a thread specifically about the rules.

>>95867398
AMF is an emanation. Emanations work like burst spells, which are blocked by total cover. It is in fact how it works.

>>95867407
No it isn't.

>>95867408
Cool, too bad it isn't.

>Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines.

You are in its confines. You lose.

>>95867425
>Cool, too bad it isn't.
It is.
>Area: 10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you
Emanations are blocked if line of effect is blocked. It cannot affect anything it doesn't have line of effect to.

>>95867415
Prove it.

>>95867428
>An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area,

The spell description trumps the general description. Next.

>>95867433
No it doesn't. There's no specific rule to trump the general rule, there's a rule describing the spell's effect that never contradicts the rules for emanations. Any square that would normally be in the area but has line of effect blocked isn't part of the area.

>>95867428
A retard-faggot mod just deleted my rule-abiding post that posted the rules.

>An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area

>>95867444
>No it doesn't. There's no specific rule to trump the general rule
Yes there is, I just posted it. You're wrong. End of discussion. If you can't follow rules, that's on you.

>Any square that would normally be in the area but has line of effect blocked isn't part of the area.
Antimagic Field doesn't work on that principle. It clearly states if you are within its field of effect, you are effected. Next.

>>95867445
And the area is...? An emanation. What are the rules for emanations?

>>95867449
>What are the rules for emanations?
I just posted the rule for an emanating AMF. If you can't read that's on you.

>>95867448
>Antimagic Field doesn't work on that principle
Yes it does. It's an emanation. Look at Waves of Exhaustion.
>Area: Cone-shaped burst
>Waves of negative energy cause all living creatures in the spell’s area to become exhausted.
Do you honestly think it's not blocked by total cover?

>>95867454
>A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creatures, or objects to which it has line of effect from its origin
Sorry. You're wrong. It can't affect an area it doesn't have line of effect to.

>>95867306
>That's not how it works. Anything within the aura automatically stops working.
>>95867398
>IT SAYS ANYTHING INSIDE THE AURA. YOU ARE INSIDE THE AURA. STOP BEING A STUPID RETARDED NIGGER.
>>95867433
>The spell description trumps the general description. Next.

The spell description of Burning Hands says that it damages every creature in the area. Therefore it too can pass through walls.

In fact, by this logic almost every spell in the game can pass through walls. You can even shoot through a Prismatic Wall with a rifle from the DMG, simply because the spray of bullets is described as hitting everything in an area.

>>95865870
>I'm the DM here, what I say goes.
And if you aren't? That's not the assumption WE have of the discussion, after all.

>Yes, I quite literally am.
No you are not, houserules and Rule Zero are not rules written in the book. The book having a framework for extension that permits such scenarios be constructed does not change that it's actively distructive for discussions of the default state of play absent use of such.

>Nothing but random meaningless jabber-jawing.
"Can be meaningfully discussed with online randos" is not meaningless in a discussion between online randos. Your volatile response to being called out is EXACTLY why it's important to remove DM variability from the subject.

>That's nice, but I'm the DM and it's banned.
No you are not. You are not permitted to move this goalpost, because we are not playing a specific scenario, we are discussing the general case implied by the contents of the rulebook.

>That's nice, but I'm the DM and it's banned.
It's actually shit like pic related as a mundane variable-strength composite bow, specifically to avoid the -4 I mentioned.

>>95865997
>>95866730
Nice of you to start giving citations, but we're not talking about AD&D because those rules are an utter mess, and the arguments of DM-specificity being dogshit for the subject in question remain.

>>95863423
>AMF debunks it. You lose. Next.
Wrong. The AMF only prevents casting the spell - the orb can move into and through it.

>>95867397
>unironic no limits fallacy

>>95861404 (OP)
You're right, this never happened in any of my games, because 1. anti-magic fields don't exist in them and 2. magic is appropriate for war in them, so there's no separation between casters and martials.

>>95867220
The full natural conclusion of your assumption is that dispelling a shrunk item makes it never revert, because it 'hasn't met the conditions.'

>>95867235
>A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, even including creatures that you can’t see. It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst’s area defines how far from the point of origin the spell’s effect extends.
>An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres.

Being behind a wall blocks an AMF, so... hiding inside a bunch of walls in all directions (like if you're in an ADAMANTINE CONE) would also block that AMF.

>>95870511
yeah but people only care about dnd so get fuked

>>95863450
I see that your grasp of the rules and the game are both as shit as ever.