looking for twice-betrayer slayer

[KellKheraptis]

This has always bugged me, so what am I missing?

The short gist is it sounds like you're crisscrossing RAW & RAI.

Let's suspend the interaction for a moment and simply look at the Initiate of Mystra Feat. It says you can attempt to cast into X, let me ask you this: Can you attempt to use the passive benefits the Feat provides if there isn't an AMF nearby? And let's say you purpose that no you cannot. What do you base that on, the meta-knowledge of you knowing there is an AMF or the Cleric's deduction that the fire went out on his pal's Flaming Longsword isn't the result of them being eaten by a Gelatinous Cube that currently under the effects of Globe of Invulnerability? IE at what point would you allow the Cleric to make his attempt? I'd personally make the attempt every single time I cast a Spell and let the DM resolve things from there but I suppose that's me, but to me it feels like we're more towards quantifying intent & flavor allowing or disallowing use more than anything else.

I suppose it seems like I'm shooting for begging the question here, but I'm really aiming for some critical thinking on your part. So moving more towards the intent of things let me remind you that a Cleric can stand in an AMF and cast Divine Power without MoI. Spellcasting is not a Special Ability nor is it type cast as an Su or SLA and Instantaneous Spell fails but the effects of anything else are merely surpassed for as long as they remain in the AMF so upon walking out of the area the Cleric reaps the full benefit of his Spell just fine. So what is the intent of IoM?

And one last question to really get your noodle going.
What happens if you remove the Divine Feat from things? Say the Cleric casts Divine Power in an AMF, levels, and enters a new AMF. The Spell is now subject to a new AMF and it's not being cast. What happens in your opinion?

To clarify, is your basic premise that, once a Cleric has successfully cast a spell using the Initiate of Mystra feat, that spell will carry over into any antimagic or dead magic field the Cleric subsequently enters? 

I'm not sure I agree with that, but I'm happy to have it explained to me; assuming that does work, then I don't see any further problems with Divine Metamagic.

Separately (and this is a separate point), in relation to your first paragraph, would you know you've succeeded on the caster level check as soon as you cast the spell?  Or only when you enter an antimagic field?  Does your character know the roll that you have made?

I believe his premise is that the intent is similar to casting inside any AMF - your own or someone else's.  When the effect occurs, be it within his own, or walking into another one, or having someone walk up and cast one, any spell cast must pass the caster level check put forth in IoM.  However, the feat itself doesn't spell out exactly how that interacts specifically (e.g. does it surpress all spells currently in effect like normal, because they were not cast within the new AMF and had no caster level check, or does the Cheater of Mystra get a caster level check for each buff in place).

My answer to skirt the above was to drop an AMF of high enough caster level that he CANNOT make the check, and then splat his ass.  If the former occurs (bye bye buffs) and he has to recast them all, from ANY AMF other than his own, a single AMF arrow followed by a long range nuke would fry him in no time, and end the challenge a LOT easier than any of the brute-force methods I've posted (which were meant to take out the AMF, as opposed to work around/through it).

[SorO_Lost]

To clarify, is your basic premise that, once a Cleric has successfully cast a spell using the Initiate of Mystra feat, that spell will carry over into any antimagic or dead magic field the Cleric subsequently enters?

Yes.

Hark back to sentence structure, or even precedence in D&D as seen through my favorite example of Powerful Build. While the introduction says cast which can appear limiting the rest of the entry goes on to describe how this works, what it does, and it ends with "If this check is successful, your spell functions normally."

And there is no reason to think it keys to one specific AMF or dead magic zone. Actually, could you imagine thinking it would on a grand scale? Instead of dealing with typeofs you're working with specific instances. Like imagine Contingency against an attack but the debate is centered around how McFighter Dirtnapper's 3rd attack on the day of May 5th 2020 is not the same as McFighter Dirtnapper's 20th attack on the day of August 9th 2019. And while a statement of that would be technically true, no one - not even the rules - is really concerned or cares.

As for knowing if you succeeded on your CL check. Well it appears you'd find out when you find an AMF. I don't think the caster inherently knows the success/failure of his CL checks like Saves, just his measure of willpower through the metaknowledge of the Player rolling the check or other force-of-effort themed feats (like reserves of strength). You just have to hope your magical might is stronger than the other guy's, see also Kell's post and how he talks about a high CL.

[IlPazzo]

And what happens to a spell that is working as normal when it enters an AMF?

[SorO_Lost]

lol