In Shadowrun 1e, Magic users are said to channel mana through their nervous system. Is this still the case?

I ask because I think Technomancers do something similiar by becoming biological PANs, and some of their Echoes seem to function through manipulating their nervous system as well.

dnd 5e – Can undead created by Animate Dead use magic wands?

I don’t think you will find any explicit text on this

I don’t see anything disallowing undead from using wands. Personally I would say zombies are too dumb. But that is my interpretation of the Mindless Soldiers, maybe wands are just as easy to use as weapons.
Skeletons I would say yes, they can use tools, so why not magical tools?

Attunement is much the same deal, there is no reason in the rules a skeleton or zombie shouldn’t be allowed to attune.
Sage Advice
Personally, I would not allow it, saying that you need a charisma of 6 or higher to enforce your will on a magic item. (This would be a house rule though)

Do note that most wands require attunement by a spellcaster. Though wand of magic missiles can be dangerous enough, if he can get his hands on enough of them.

Advice on how to proceed

What I would do

  • Allow it for skeletons and not for zombies.
  • Make sure there is a lot of AoE capabilities among the enemies.
  • Limit the supply of wands that does not require attunement by a spellcaster. To my knowledge the only offensive wand that does not require attunement is wand of magic missile, if there are others, I would think really hard before allowing those into the game.
  • Use the shield spell a bunch. It negates magic missile completely, but also spends the targets reaction, preventing it from counterspelling the players important spells.
  • Make sure most encounters have some beefy bodyguards he can unload his magic missiles on, so even if his skeletons don’t kill the main threat of the encounter, they still contribute.
  • When he eventually starts counterspelling shield spells, have some low powered caster to counterspell the counterspell, and be well aware of counterspells limitation (60 foot range, must see the spell being cast)

This would work for me, because I tend to use a lot of spellcasters regardless, with the shield spell and fireball, they can stop the skeletons, until he can rebuild. I also love people considering these things, and really engaging in my game world. Can my skeletons use wands? is something every necromancer apprentice would ask his master I am sure.

Notice how I am taking care to give uses for the wands, without letting them break my game, if you are going to give every enemy and amulet of shielding, it is better to just disallow the wands to begin with.

What you should do

It depends, consider these things:

  • does the enemies you plan to use have access to the shield spell? Liches, Dragons, Wizards, Sorceress would all reasonably have access to the shield spell. But also high level fiends could get it added to their list.
  • How powerful is this character compared to the rest of the party already? We don’t want him stealing the show. If he is powerful, consider asking him for help on tricks and build tips for the other characters, so they don’t fall behind (Never let him dictate how the others play, only suggest).
  • What will limit him from going all out 20 skeletons with 20 wands doing 60d4+20 damage per turn? It could be a simple talk with him, saying “I know it would make sense to go buy 20 wands, once you can afford it, but can we agree you don’t hunt them down, and limit yourself to those found in treasure?”, or maybe there simply is no way to find 20 such wands in a reasonable time.

If you are still on the fence, you can maybe do a compromised ruling:
Only skeletons who were spellcasters in life can use wands, and still only the non-attunement ones. This has no grounding in the rules, but the game has a DM for a reason, so that he can make rulings like this.

You can also say that only some wands work.
Skeletons cannot speak, you might say wands use command words in most cases. This is explicitly against RAW though, but again, you are the DM.
DMG:

Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item, often by expending charges >from it. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell and caster level, doesn’t expend >any of the user’s spell slots, and requires no components unless the item’s description >says otherwise.

You can even make it a quest.
You don’t know how to make your skeletons use wands. But the legendary necromancer Bob Bonemaster, is famous for having done it. You can have the necromancer go on a quest to Bobs tomb and learn how he did in his research notes, or perhaps Bob is now an undead you can talk to, and convince to teach it. This approach is also good if you are a little worried the other players fall a little behind. Simply give the specific quests as well, that also gives them a boon of some sort.

spells – Does Detect Magic make an Arcane Mark placed on an invisible surface glow?

Signs point to “yes” with some wiggle room for GM interpretation.

The first hurdle: can Arcane Mark be cast on a creature?

If an arcane mark is placed on a living being, …

So, yes.

The second hurdle: can it be cast on an unwilling creature?

Range: touch

… and, there’s no “Target” field, so the spell doesn’t specify that it can’t be cast on an unwilling creature (though, a touch attack is likely required to do so).

The third hurdle: does it matter how the Mark is made invisible?

An Arcane Mark itself “can be visible or invisible”, and “(i)f an invisible mark is made, a detect magic spell causes it to glow and be visible”. So, an Arcane Mark which is created as an invisible Mark is definitely revealed by Detect Magic. But, what about a mark which is made on something which is later affected by Invisibility (or its variants)?

Fortunately, Invisibility answers that question:

Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source).

Since the Arcane Mark explicitly glows, it’s a light source; since it’s a light source, the mark itself is visible-ish (at the very least, the square it’s in should be readily detectible, in the general case).

So, where does GM interpretation come in?

First: since Arcane Mark doesn’t explicitly state that it can be cast on an unwilling target, the GM could rule that it can’t be. This is something that the GM should be freely willing to talk about before the tactic is tried, of course.

Second: if the Mark is somewhere that the target can cover it (with a cloak or something), the GM could rule that the target can cover the mark, hiding the light (this GM remembers this being a valid option, but can’t find rules support at the moment; also, in fairness, this rule should apply to light sources generally: players should be able to close an invisible bullseye lantern or hide an everburning torch in their cloak to prevent foes from seeing the light source at the cost of not having it available themselves).

Third: the GM could rule that the area is bright enough that determining which square the target is in requires a perception check (simulationist real-world example: telling if a non-OLED LCD/LED display is on by seeing the … “brighter shade of black”, I guess … in a bright room vs. a dark room).

For what it’s worth, this GM thinks the tactic is clever. Further, since there’s a real cost to using it (it burns an action, which is the most valuable currency in the game), I wouldn’t be prone to nerfing it via either of the “interpretation” options above. However, I would have some canny foes who have had time and reason to watch the PCs in action (or to have received reports) use the tactic against them or be otherwise prepared for it (eg., by preparing – and preparing for – Darkness).

dnd 5e – Can Tortles receive the non-AC benefits from magic armor?

You gain no benefit from wearing armor.

This seems pretty unambiguous. There are no secret rules. Gaining the benefits of magic armor requires wearing it:

Unless an armor’s description says otherwise, armor must be worn for its magic to function.

But the Tortle’s Natural Armor feature says you gain no benefit from wearing armor. So usually, the magic of the armor is explicitly going to be a benefit of wearing it, unless the armor’s description says that it doesn’t have to be worn to gain magical benefits. (I’m not aware of magic armor that doesn’t require wearing to gain its magical benefits). We will see that while this is probably the RAW ruling, it really isn’t a big deal to rule either way.

It’s easy to work with this as a DM.

There are lots of magic items. I doubt you’re running a “only magic items are armor” campaign, so it should be easy enough to make sure your Tortle player has access to usable magic items. Maybe a particularly industrious magical craftsman specializes in doing armor enchantment transfers for Tortles.

There is some rules support for just letting it work.

We also see this in the rules for Wearing and Wielding Items:

In most cases, a magic item that’s meant to be worn can fit a creature regardless of size or build. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they magically adjust themselves to the wearer. Rare exceptions exist.

It’s open to interpretation, I think, if this paragraph carved out an exception to the Tortle’s Natural Armor feature, but it definitely would not be a big deal to let the Tortle benefit from magical armor, citing this rule as support.

can a rogue with the minor magic talent take the extra cantrips to gain other spells?

Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!

  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid

  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.

dungeons and dragons – What are the official opposing schools of magic?

But the standard idea of “Opposed Schools of Magic” only exists in 2E. Let’s walk through them…

First Edition

In 1E, there were no restrictions on schools of magic. There was a sub-type of “Magic User” called an “Illusionist” that had access to a slightly different battery of spells, but beyond that the idea of specialization was a non-thing.

Second Edition

This is where the idea of Opposed Schools of Magic come from. On Page 45 of the AD&D2E PHB Revised, we get the following info…

First, we get a diagram showing all of the schools as they relate to one another. This is a screenshot I found of the exact image:

enter image description here

Then we get the following blurb of text

Specialist wizards have advantages and disadvantages when compared to mages. Their chance to know spells of their school of magic is greatly increased, but the intensive study results in a smaller chance to know spells outside their school. The number of spells they can cast increases, but they lose the ability to cast spells of the school in opposition to their specialty (opposite it in the diagram).

And then further…

Opposition School(s) always includes the school directly opposite the character’s school of study in the diagram. In addition, the schools to either side of this one may also be disallowed due to the nature of the character’s school. For example, an invoker cannot learn enchantment/charm or conjuration/summoning spells and cannot use magical items that duplicate spells from these schools.

So, given that…lastly we have a table telling us what all of the opposing schools of magic are.

  • Abjuration is opposed by Alteration and Illusion
  • Conjuration/Summoning is opposed by Greater Divination and Invocation/Evocation
  • Greater Divination is opposed by Conjuration/Summoning
  • Enchantment/Charm is opposed by Invocation/Evocation and Necromancy
  • Invocation/Evocation is opposed by Conjuration/Summoning and Enchantment/Charm
  • Illusion is opposed by Necromancy, Invocation/Evocation, and Abjuration
  • Necromancy is opposed by Illusion and Enchantment/Charm
  • Alteration is opposed by Abjuration and Necromancy

So…it’s complicated and there’s no ‘simple’ rule managing it, just a table to memorize.

Third Edition

Spell Specialization was changed for both 3.0 and the 3.5 revision

3.0

On Page 54 of the 3.0 PHB, we get the following…

The more difficult a school is to master, the more one must give up in order to specialize in it. Some schools only require that a specialist give up one other school, while others might require the giving up of two or three.

Following this is a list of the Spell Schools and the complicated rubric you could follow to determine what your prohibited schools were. This gave you more choice in the matter, but was even worse than 2.0 when it came to “memorize this” because it didn’t even fit tidily into a table. Essentially, when you picked your specialization, you were given a list of options for which schools (and how many) you could be prohibited from using. As before, let’s go through your options for ‘prohibited schools’ one at a time.

Abjuration

  • Option 1-Pick one of the following: Conjuration, Enchantment, Evocation, Illusion, or Transmutation
  • Option 2-BOTH Divination and Necromancy

Conjuration

  • Option 1-Pick one of the following: Evocation or Transmutation
  • Option 2-Pick two of the following: Abjuration, Enchantment, or Illusion
  • Option 3-Pick any three schools

Divination

  • Select any 1 school of your choice

Enchantment

  • Option 1-Pick one of the following: Abjuration, Conjuration, Evocation, Illusion, or Transmutation
  • Option 2-BOTH Divination and Necromancy

Evocation

  • Option 1-Pick one of the following: Conjuration or Transmutation
  • Option 2-Pick two of the following: Abjuration, Enchantment, or Illusion
  • Option 3-Pick any three schools

Illusion

  • Option 1-Pick one of the following: Abjuration, Conjuration, Enchantment, Evocation, or Transmutation
  • Option 2-BOTH Divination and Necromancy

Necromancy

  • Select any 1 school of your choice

Transmutation

  • Option 1-Pick one of the following: Conjuration or Evocation
  • Option 2-Pick two of the following: Abjuration, Enchantment, or Illusion
  • Option 3-Pick any three schools

3.5

In Third Edition’s 3.5 revision, Specialization changed again. This time, ‘Opposing schools of magic’ is not considered, vastly simplifying matters–instead, the rules on Page 57 of the 3.5E PHB look like so:

Specialization allows a wizard to cast extra spells from her chosen school, but she then never learns to cast spells from some other schools.
(..)
The wizard must choose whether to specialize and, if she does so, choose her specialty at 1st level. At this time, she must also give up two other schools of magic (unless she chooses to specialize in divination; see below), which become her prohibited schools.

And just to cover the Diviner note…

Unlike the other specialists, a diviner must give up only one other school.

So, in 3.5E, there aren’t actually opposing Schools of Magic. Instead, your character chooses to focus on one school of magic, to the exclusion of two other schools of your choice.

4E

School Specialization does not exist in 4E.

5E

School specialization made a return, but as Sub-classes, as seen on Page 115 of the 5E Player’s Handbook

When you reach 2nd level, you choose an arcane tradition, shaping your practice of magic through one of eight schools: Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Evocation, Illusion, Necromancy, or Transmutation, all detailed at the end of the class description.

There are no ‘opposed’ schools of magic, and you do not lose access or benefits from other Schools by picking one to specialize in. Though it is, perhaps, worth noting that 5E is the first edition to force a Wizard to specialize in a school. In all prior editions that included specialization–specialization was optional–you could always choose to be a Generalist Wizard who had not focused their studies.

dnd 5e – 14th level Artificer (Magic Item Savant) + Metamagic Adept items to regain sorcery points

You have found the only way for an Artificer to restore the Metamagic Adept SP apart from a long rest.

A 14th level Artificer has the Magic Item Savant feature:

You ignore all class, race, spell, and level requirements on attuning to or using a magic item.

So a 14th level Artificer may attune to the Bloodwell Vial, which says:

In addition, when you roll any Hit Dice to recover hit points while you are carrying the vial, you can regain 5 sorcery points.

Since you maximum SP is 2, you would only regain 2.

There is no other way to regain these 2 sorcery points, except through taking a long rest. As noted in my answer here, Metamagic Adept does not allow you to convert spell slots into SP.

This search on DNDBeyond shows all of the relevant results in their database that mention the phrase “sorcery points”. The only results are the Metamagic Adept feat, the Bloodwell Vial, and the Sorcerer class.

You can restore them a little bit quicker if you are a race that can long rest in 4 hours.

(Notably, a 13th level thief rogue could probably do something similar with their Use Magic Device feature.)

magic items – Pathfinder warbow concept review

A few clarifications up front:

First of all, what is a “war bow”? I can’t seem to find any Pathfinder stats for such a weapon. The third-party weapons list includes a “warbow” from Adventuring Classes: A Fistful of Denarii by Robert J. Grady; since it’s the closest I can find, I’m using its stats for the rest of this answer.

Second, a price of “+5 bonus” doesn’t make sense for a unique weapon. Those types of prices are only for adding magic onto some weapon, which isn’t what you are doing here. Specific named weapons just get their value written out in gold pieces, something like “50,450 gp” (i.e. the value of a +5 warbow). Anyway, since you’re giving this out early on, and treating it like an artifact, any price doesn’t make sense; artifacts don’t have values attached to them.

Finally, just to clarify in case there is some confusion, being “essentially useless at higher levels” is not necessarily the fate of all magical items that don’t “gain(…) abilities as the PC gained levels and powers.” With every item, you can always craft new abilities onto it. That is, a +1 war bow can be improved to a +1 adaptive war bow and then to +1 adaptive distance war bow just by spending the time/money to improve it. Nothing wrong with an item that grows automatically, for sure, but just so you’re aware that other options exist.

Now then,

Bottom line up front: Costs more than a character could ever afford at all but the latest levels

A 1st-level character doesn’t get magic weapons, almost-ever. Even at 1st level, this bow is worth about 2,450-2,950 gp—the guidelines would say 8,450 gp, but I think it’s more accurate in this case to evaluate adaptive as being equivalent to a composite bow matching the character, so 0 gp for a Strength of 10 (or less), or 500 gp for a Strength of 18 (very high for a 1st-level archer). Still, 500 gp alone is more than 1st-level characters get, to say nothing of the 2,450 gp worth of +1 warbow.

A +1 adaptive warbow doesn’t become reasonable until, at a minimum, 4th level. A minor ring of spell storing cannot be afforded before 5th, and isn’t really reasonable until 5th or 6th—and that’s still going to be a large chunk of that character’s wealth.

Then enhance arrows comes in, and blur, adding at a bare minimum another 30,000 gp—at that point the weapon is worth something like 80,000 gp, which is more than a character should have total until 11th level, and not a reasonable amount to have until about 14th level.

Before you even get there, though, you get a ring of spell storing and at-will plane shift, which easily add another 80,000 gp. That value is probably conceivable around 16th level…

…when you’ve gotten imbue arrow, which is very good.

Basically, until about 17th level or so, this bow is far more valuable than a character could reasonably afford at the given level. And I’m being generous: I am ignoring adaptive and distance as minor quality-of-life ribbons rather than evaluating them how the game says to, and I am ignoring phasing arrow (which is probably fair, since it’s pretty poor).

Concern: Obviates the arcane archer prestige class?

This gets enhance arrows, imbue arrow, and phase arrow, three features of the arcane archer prestige class. More importantly, imbue arrow is just about the only reason to ever play an arcane archer, so if someone with this already has that, they got the best part of the arcane archer class “for free.”

Ultimately, this doesn’t concern me that much, since arcane archer isn’t really all that great anyway, and the arcane archer would have imbue arrow at a far lower level. On top of that, typical horizon walkers aren’t going to have great spellcasting.

Concern: This incentivizes a probably-unintended usage

This bow is designed for the horizon walker prestige class, but beyond meeting the bare minimum requirements to use the bow, that class doesn’t synergize with the bow in any way. That means that someone who wants the other benefits of this bow—most notably imbue arrow without having to use arcane archer—is encouraged to take just two levels of horizon walker, enough to use this bow, and focus the rest of their levels on something more powerful than horizon walker. An 18th-level wizard/2nd-level horizon walker probably becomes the optimal usage. It seems kind of unlikely that you intended that as the best way to use this bow.

Since this is intended for a particular character, this may be a purely theoretical concern though.

Concern: Its weapon properties are quite weak

While adaptive is very good (and basically mandatory for a weapon like this), distance is pretty poor—the warbow already has an enormous range, and the opportunities to use an even greater range tend to be few and far between in most campaigns. That is often intentional, since when long-ranged characters can attack from those ranges, a lot of times they can eliminate encounters without ever being endangered. Even if the enemy has similar range with which to respond, other PCs may well not, and therefore not get to participate.

So, assuming you don’t often let this character snipe enemies with impunity, you have basically a +1 adaptive warbow, with flaming, frost, or shock so long as you aren’t using magic arrows. That’s not great, and the enhancement bonus offered by enhance arrows is entirely wasted (the +1 bonus it puts on arrows overlaps with the +1 bonus on the bow).

Consider having enhance arrows improve, eventually to +5, which will enable the bow to pierce damage reduction. That is very important to an archer. Some additional properties on the bow itself would be well worth considering.

Otherwise, this bow and its fantastic utility will spend a lot of time slung across the character’s back, while they use a real bow for attacks.

Concern: At-will plane shift might be somewhat game-warping

As an escape button, it’s without parallel. It means your entire party can escape nearly any situation in a round, whenever they need to, and then return to approximately the same location whenever they like. That could seriously change how your campaign plays out. The low accuracy on the return trip could be a problem for the heroes in some cases, but at least some of their quests may well not be overly hampered by it—they could literally plane shift in and out at their leisure, waiting until they get a lucky roll on the “distance from target” check. On a wide-open battlefield, they could appear, blast, and return to any safe haven they might care for.

If they’re really clever, they can abuse planes with positive energy for healing, planes with fast time for sleeping and recovering spell slots, and so on. Plane shift is a big deal, especially at-will.

Concern: The final value of this weapon is at least 414,450 gp

The value of a +4 warbow (accounting for the +1, adaptive, distance, and the flaming, frost, or shock available from enhance arrows), a minor cloak of displacement, a minor ring of spell storing, a ring of spell storing, a major ring of spell storing, and a use-activated item of plane shift at-will is a staggering 414,450 gp. That makes it vastly more expensive than any other item in the game excepting only the champion of the gilded host, a colossal construct made of solid gold and heavily magic’d, besides.

And all of this is ignoring imbue arrow and phase arrow, since there aren’t guidelines for how to price those.

Now, a 20th-level character is supposed to have 880,000 gp worth of wealth to their names. Such a character could afford all that. And the major ring of spell storing is certainly the largest chunk of value in the bow (nearly half), so prior to that it is a more reasonable value. But it’s definitely something to keep in mind. The other characters in the game may need some substantial gear of their own to compensate here.

Conclusion

Ultimately, as in at 20th level, this probably fine—it does provide a lot of value, but at those levels characters can reasonably afford it. It has fantastic utility, but is perhaps not as good as a straight weapon. That’s a little awkward; the horizon walker may well want some other bow for just attacking with at high levels.

However, while leveling it is consistently a minimum of 2 levels ahead of the wealth curve, and that’s being pretty generous in how I’m evaluating its features. At a bare minimum I would shift everything up a tier, skipping the phase arrow feature of the 9th-level bow. The 1st-level bow would instead be just a “+0” adaptive warbow (“+0” here meaning “masterwork, but counts as magical”), probably—even that is quite good at 1st, but it’s not totally unreasonable.

Something like

begin{array}{c c l}
textbf{Character Level} & textbf{Weapon Level} & textbf{Weapon Effect} \ hline
1^text{st}-2^text{nd} & 1^text{st} & textit{“+0” adaptive war bow} \
3^text{rd}-4^text{th} & 2^text{nd} & textit{+1 adaptive war bow} \
5^text{th}-6^text{th} & 3^text{rd} & text{Activation ring }textit{spell storing, minor} \
7^text{th}-8^text{th} & 4^text{th} & text{Enhance arrows} \
9^text{th}-10^text{th} & 5^text{th} & text{Minor displacement (as }textit{blur}text{)} \
11^text{th}-12^text{th} & 6^text{th} & textit{+1 adaptive distance* war bow} \
13^text{th}-14^text{th} & 7^text{th} & text{Activation ring }textit{spell storing, regular} \
15^text{th}-16^text{th} & 8^text{th} & textit{Plane shift}text{,** 3/day} \
17^text{th}-18^text{th} & 9^text{th} & text{Imbue arrow} \
19^text{th}-20^text{th} & 10^text{th} & text{Activation ring }textit{spell storing, major} \
end{array}

To be clear, this is still very good at each of those levels—plenty would argue that it’s still too much. I think it’s probably OK enough—you’re pushing the envelope, but you have to in order to overcome custom content, and besides, assuming we are talking about a horizon walker here, those aren’t very powerful and could use the boost.

But I probably would go further. Toning down the major ring of spell storing and adding some per-day limitation on plane shift (perhaps one that scales with level) are probably your best bets for reining in some of the more problematic elements, and that should give you room to improve the bow’s usage as an actual weapon, which at this point is fairly lacking.

terminology – what is great fortitude or even fortitude specifically in rpg games, playing low magic age which has this

Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!

  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid

  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.

dnd 3.5e – Does a golem’s magic immunity bypass its opponent’s defensive spells?

Golem spell immunity is perfectly equivalent to having infinite spell resistance, and nothing more.

In the case of buffs on others, like freedom of movement, those don’t do anything to the golem—their effects exist entirely on their targets. There is nothing for the golem to be immune to. The golem prevents spells from being cast on it; it does nothing about magic altering reality around it, which is what freedom of movement does.

Also, I dislike that freedom of movement completely shuts down grappling as a viable strategy for both PCs and enemies at higher levels

This is completely fair; freedom of movement is a completely bonkers spell…

SR and magic immunity bypassing it seems like an elegant solution.

…but I could not possibly disagree more strongly with this.

SR is a clunky, problematic mechanic. The rules are not well-designed in the least.

Figuring out how on earth to extend spell resistance (and, by extension, golem immunity) to affect things beyond the being that has them—preventing spell effects on other creatures, objects, and locations—is a dubious exercise. You might feel that you can just say “well the golem can treat you as if you didn’t have that SR-Yes spell cast on you,” but that will be nearly impossible to consistently define. What does it mean for the golem to ignore, say, the flight speed someone got from fly? I don’t know—and neither do you. And that’s literally just the first spell that jumped out at me when I gave a quick scan of the core spell list; there are going to be dozens, if not hundreds, of spells who are going to need individual adjudication. It’ll be a complete nightmare.

And so what will happen instead is that the DM’ll just “go with their gut” any time SR is involved, and golems and the like will become mystery boxes where the game is to read the DM’s mind about what works and what doesn’t. Personally, I’d have zero interest playing that game.

Finally, as overpowered as spellcasters are—and they absolutely are—turning off magic is a terrible “solution.” Yes, if you force the party into a dead magic zone, the cleric and wizard will be useless.1 But that isn’t any better than the monk being useless otherwise. You still have a broken game—and game where some of the players are told to stop playing for a while. No one picked the wizard class to play a powerless know-it-all; they picked the wizard class to cast spells. Denying them the opportunity to play is rude, and is rather likely to lead to those players finding something better to do with their time.

There are, simply put, vastly better solutions to the problems of overpowered magic like freedom of movement. My personal preference for that is quite simple—in E6, freedom of movement isn’t overpowered because no one can cast freedom of movement. A cleric of travel might have a few rounds per day of it, at most. There are, of course, other options if you wish, though.

  1. Barring Cheater of Mystra, which if you’re pulling dungeon-wide dead-magic zones, I’d say you actually managed to deserve it.