12
\$\begingroup\$

An Antimagic Field is a 10-foot-radius invisible sphere which suppresses the magical effects on objects and creatures, prevents spell casting inside its AoE and spells with an AoE (e.g., Fireball) can't extend into the sphere. Moreover, magic items become mundane. In particular (emphasis mine)

Spells and other magical effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the sphere and can't protrude into it.

Concerning summoned creatures and objects, the description says:

Creatures and Objects. A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere. Such a creature instantly reappears once the space the creature occupied is no longer within the sphere.

The description of Arcane Eye says:

You create an invisible, magical eye within range that hovers in the air for the duration.

Nowhere it is specified that this invisible eye is a creature or an object, but since its description says that it is magical I believe that it is suppressed by the Antimagic Field given the first quote about this spell (see the SAC for determining if something is magical).

But once the eye enters the AoE of the Antimagic Field can the caster move it out the sphere via the mental control? Or must one apply the same rule for objects and creatures?

\$\endgroup\$

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
22
\$\begingroup\$

You cannot move the eye into the antimagic field.

The eye is not a creature, and spells typically tell us when they create objects, so we conclude that the eye is just a magical effect. Now, we see in the antimagic field description:

Spells and other magical effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the sphere and can't protrude into it.

The eye, being a magical effect, cannot protrude into the antimagic field. Based on this, I would rule that you cannot even move the eye into the field, it should be blocked from entering the field at all. Obviously, this isn't definitively explained in the rules here, but I think this is the most reasonable ruling based on what we've got. Your mileage may vary from DM to DM.

If the field is created around the eye, you cannot move the eye out.

Moving your arcane eye is a function of the spell:

As an action, you can move the eye up to 30 feet in any direction.

Since moving the eye is an effect of the spell, you cannot move it if the field is created with the eye inside it:

While an effect is suppressed, it doesn't function

Thus, the spell effect of moving the eye does not function while the eye is in the field.

\$\endgroup\$
9
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Do you suggest that the eye will be blocked at the boundary of the AoE of the Antimagic Field, as it happens with solid walls? I was thinking mainly of an eye sent for scouting and then encountering a creature with an Antimagic Field cast on them. \$\endgroup\$
    – Eddymage
    Commented Jun 24, 2021 at 13:39
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ That is correct. Because the movement function is blocked inside the field, you cannot actually use it to move the eye into the field. Ill make it more clear. \$\endgroup\$
    – Thomas Markov
    Commented Jun 24, 2021 at 13:40
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I like this answer better than the eye moving into the field and instantly going offline. "There's some sort of... barrier here--!" is more interesting than just losing the connection with no explanation. \$\endgroup\$
    – Darth Pseudonym
    Commented Jun 24, 2021 at 19:13
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @DarthPseudonym I do not know, because the "feeling" of a barrier that a caster may sense does not fit completely with the spirit of Antimagic Field, imho. Within the same reasoning, I would be led to rule that the flames of a Fireball or of a Wall of Fire would circumvent the sphere, like a solid obstacle, rather than of being abruptly interrupted. Anyway, Thomas' answer does reflects what the rules say, as usual. \$\endgroup\$
    – Eddymage
    Commented Jun 24, 2021 at 19:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Eddymage To be fair, I do not mean to stake too strong a claim on rules-as-written here, there is certainly room for a DM to rule otherwise. I just think this is the most reasonable reading of the rules we've got, but other interpretations are viable. \$\endgroup\$
    – Thomas Markov
    Commented Jun 24, 2021 at 19:35
3
\$\begingroup\$

I would rule that you can move the Arcane Eye into the anti-magic field, but that if you do so, it winks out. You then cannot move it further, or move it out, because it is suppressed. But if the anti-magic field moves so as to uncover its location, then it would re-appear, and be able to be seen through and moved, etc.

Anti-magic fields and spells do not say anything about preventing entry, only that the magic is suppressed within them. By the oft-cited principle that "spells only do what they say they do", entry would not be prevented.

\$\endgroup\$
7
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Can you give some more explanation about why you would rule this way? Our guidance for supporting answers states: "Any of us can say “here's what I'd do” based on no actual experience, or come up with something on the spot as an off-the-cuff idea, but our site is not looking for this content. We want to collect tried-and-tested solutions with well-understood outcomes. We don't want your opinion; we want your expertise." \$\endgroup\$
    – Thomas Markov
    Commented Jun 24, 2021 at 17:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ Anti-magic fields and spells do not say anything about preventing entry, only that the magic is suppressed within them. By the oft-cited principle that "spells only do what they say they do", entry would not be prevented. \$\endgroup\$
    – PhilB
    Commented Jun 24, 2021 at 18:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ what's the difference between entry and protrusion? \$\endgroup\$
    – Thomas Markov
    Commented Jun 24, 2021 at 18:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ This is how I ruled last time during the session, i.e. I applied the rules for creatures and objects to the Arcane Eye, but then looking carefully at the spells' description all the doubts that I wrote above came in my mind. \$\endgroup\$
    – Eddymage
    Commented Jun 24, 2021 at 19:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ This is how this game spins off into the weeds. It's a game, about roleplaying and storytelling. It isn't, and cannot be made to be, a comprehensive set of rules for and about everything that could possibly happen. It is inherently going to involve opinion and judgement and events that the rules do not specify. So make a ruling that makes sense, and keep playing. Try to be consistent in your rulings. That's all. \$\endgroup\$
    – PhilB
    Commented Jun 24, 2021 at 22:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .