Question about AMF & Estraordinary Spell Aim

[lolcat]

The Feat "Extraordinary Spell Aim" from Complete Adventurer is described in the following way:

Whenever you cast a spell with an area, you can attempt to shape the spell's area so that one creature within the area is unaffected by the spell. To accomplish this, you must succeed on a Spellcraft check (DC 25 + spell level). Casting a spell affected by the Extraordinary Spell Aim feat requires a full-round action unless the spell's normal casting time is longer, in which case the casting time is unchanged.

So if a character has an Antimagic Field active on her, does that mean that hostile spells she is the target of are actually suppressed, as in

An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it.

, or does this not happen since the character is actually not affected by the spell due to the feat?

Thanks for any help in clarifying this!

[NOhara24]

The Feat "Extraordinary Spell Aim" from Complete Adventurer is described in the following way:


So if a character has an Antimagic Field active on her, does that mean that hostile spells she is the target of are actually suppressed, as in , or does this not happen since the character is actually not affected by the spell due to the feat?

Thanks for any help in clarifying this!

I don't think it would apply since the character in question is targeted - but the AMF still functions...am I making sense?

So let's say a character is surrounded by their own party. All adjacent from one another. An enemy hurls a fireball at them using this feat. Somehow, the character in question has an AMF up with a 10 foot radius, meaning not only themselves but their party are covered as well. If the caster excludes the character that used the AMF from the fireball, they're not targeted at all. However, since the fireball still falls in the area of the AMF, it still fizzles.

I hope I understood you correctly.

[lolcat]

While your answer is correct i think, it is not quite what i meant:

Lets say that the caster excluded himself from the AMF via the Feat, and then would be in the radius of the fireball. Would he take damage?

[NOhara24]

While your answer is correct i think, it is not quite what i meant:

Lets say that the caster excluded himself from the AMF via the Feat, and then would be in the radius of the fireball. Would he take damage?

Ah! That makes much more sense!

The answer is still yes, because the feat itself describes shaping the spell in question - in this case the AMF. So by excluding himself, he's physically not covered by the AMF and would in fact take damage from the fireball.