call lightning

[Nifft]

From a purely mechanical perspective, spells with a duration of Concentration seem to be stronger than spells which don't require concentration to maintain. Having a duration of Concentration can be viewed as a nerf. It would be morally wrong to allow a nerf to grant an advantage, even if the arguments in favor were compelling (which IMHO they're not).

Cheers, -- N

 

[underfoot]

If concentrating on a spell is "using" a spell, then a caster who is concentrating on a spell to, for example, maintain the duration will lose the spell if he enters an AMF;

And this is not true. The AMF only supresses magical effects. If you are still concentrating after walking through an AMF you will still have control of the spell. In the case of Call Lighting, when you attempt to call lighting nothing happens (it's not specified so no use arguing, but my stand is the effect to trigger the lighting is indeed magical and thus negated while inside an AMF).

 

[IanB]

And this is not true. The AMF only supresses magical effects. If you are still concentrating after walking through an AMF you will still have control of the spell. In the case of Call Lighting, when you attempt to call lighting nothing happens (it's not specified so no use arguing, but my stand is the effect to trigger the lighting is indeed magical and thus negated while inside an AMF).

Ah, but now you're permitting concentration to work for one spell, but not for another, even though they appear to be the same action. I would think that it has to be one or the other; either you lose concentration-duration spells, or you can use call lightning.

 

[underfoot]

Ah, but now you're permitting concentration to work for one spell, but not for another, even though they appear to be the same action. I would think that it has to be one or the other; either you lose concentration-duration spells, or you can use call lightning.

Nope. I'm saying you could hold concentration on a spell if you were already concentrating before moving into the AMF. Once inside the AMF you cannot change or issue new commands to the spell/effect (the spell still exists, it is just supressed in the background). You could not initiate a new "concentration" type effect while in the AMF though.

 

[IanB]

Nope. I'm saying you could hold concentration on a spell if you were already concentrating before moving into the AMF. Once inside the AMF you cannot change or issue new commands to the spell/effect (the spell still exists, it is just supressed in the background). You could not initiate a new "concentration" type effect while in the AMF though.

But concentration isn't a continuous action; it is a separate standard action you take each turn.

 

[underfoot]

Concentrating to hold a spell effect is a continous action, as it uses your standard action to maintain the concentration. Basically, anything you try to change/direct through concentration would fail but the spell will remain active.

Concentration (Con)
If the Concentration check succeeds, you may continue with the action as normal. If the check fails, the action automatically fails and is wasted. If you were in the process of casting a spell, the spell is lost. If you were concentrating on an active spell, the spell ends as if you had ceased concentrating on it. If you were directing a spell, the direction fails but the spell remains active.

Concentration
The spell lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell can also break your concentration while you’re maintaining one, causing the spell to end.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Adding a visual effect, such as lightning flying above the caster's head, adds alot more to the spell than just "flavor." For one, it makes the spell inherently obvious, taking away a valuable strategic element of the spell.

Invisible lightning?

So no, you really aren't at liberty to add such things to a spell and still be within the RAW. Do whatever you wish in your own games, of course.

So, you don't allow spellcasters in your game to customize their spells with flavor descriptions that have no or very little game effect? Can I call down reddish-orange lightning instead of white lightning? Why not?

If people could say whatever they want when casting and directing their spells, it would make it pretty much impossible to identify them by their verbal components with spellcraft.

It would have zero bearing on spellcraft. Just because the player/DM cannot figure out the special effects doesn't mean that a successful spellcraft check can't. Using flavorful descriptions will help keep veteran players interested and reduce the pressure of not metagaming. "So, my cold-vulnerable fighter sees the enemy mage wrapped in green flames, eh? Gee, I have no idea what that could possibly be."

 

[Nifft]

So, you don't allow spellcasters in your game to customize their spells with flavor descriptions that have no or very little game effect?

*points up* What you propose has two parts. One is lightning flying above your head -- nice flavor. The other is verbally commanding lightning as though it were a summoned monster -- see my detailed reply above.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Falling Icicle]

Invisible lightning?

People with See Invisibility and other such abilities would still be able to see it, dispel it, etc.

So, you don't allow spellcasters in your game to customize their spells with flavor descriptions that have no or very little game effect? Can I call down reddish-orange lightning instead of white lightning? Why not?

It's called the Spell Thematics feat. Why don't I allow my players to make such changes? Because even the most innocent-seaming changes to a spell can have gameplay ramifications. If I see someone with blue or green fire around them, I know that they are using the chill version of fire shield. If they have violet or blue fire around them it would have to be the warm version of fire sheild. That makes a very big difference. This is why the spell thematics feat makes spellcraft checks to identify a spell much more difficult.

It would have zero bearing on spellcraft. Just because the player/DM cannot figure out the special effects doesn't mean that a successful spellcraft check can't. Using flavorful descriptions will help keep veteran players interested and reduce the pressure of not metagaming. "So, my cold-vulnerable fighter sees the enemy mage wrapped in green flames, eh? Gee, I have no idea what that could possibly be."

Zero bearing on spellcraft? It is possible to identify a spell just from hearing its verbal component. Why? Because you know what the verbal components of various spells are. Let's say the verbal component of knock is "open saysame." If someone says something other than "open saysame" when casting knock, how are you supposed to know that they are casting knock and not some other spell? The spellcraft skill makes no sense if spells aren't consistent and their components, appearance, etc are not set. The example you gave assumes that you can see the effect. And again, if someone could make their spells appear as whatever they wish, how are you supposed to be able to tell one spell from another by looking at it? You even mention green flames, and as I pointed out, in the case of fire shield color makes a very big difference.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Zero bearing on spellcraft? ... The spellcraft skill makes no sense if spells aren't consistent and their components, appearance, etc are not set. The example you gave assumes that you can see the effect. And again, if someone could make their spells appear as whatever they wish, how are you supposed to be able to tell one spell from another by looking at it?

It's easy, you roll a normal spellcraft. "With your spellcraft check of 28, you recognize the bluish mist surrounding the enemy mage as a chill shield." When the fighter sees this, unless he is clued in by someone with a good spellcraft, he has zero chance of metagaming and, more importantly, the veteran players will find it much more interesting. Heck, I wouldn't even bother mentioned green flames because I don't even need a spellcraft check for that. Requiring the use of spellcraft for spellcraft rolls makes my suggestion very consistent.

In effect, what you're suggesting is that the players use their own knowledge of the descriptions of spells to do spellcraft and not their spellcraft roll.

It's called the Spell Thematics feat. Why don't I allow my players to make such changes? Because even the most innocent-seaming changes to a spell can have gameplay ramifications.

I agree that they may have an in-game effect and, depending on the nature of that effect I would recommend caution. This is why I caveated my comment with "little or no effect". So, as DM you either restrict the flavor appropriately, or you just plain decide not to let it have an in-game effect.

If I see someone with blue or green fire around them, I know that they are using the chill version of fire shield. If they have violet or blue fire around them it would have to be the warm version of fire sheild.

That's exactly my point. Unless you have sufficient spellcraft, you shouldn't know what the spell is. You shouldn't let metagame knowledge when you once played an archmage up to 20th level affect what your 4th-level fighter would know.