call lightning

[Nifft]

(a) I heard the explosion while in my car.
(b) I heard the explosion within my car.
Big difference

Wrong.
(a) I use a spell while in an AMF.
(b) I use a spell within an AMF.

Both are explicitly prohibited. There is no difference so far as the AMF is concerned. Or are you making a point about grammar which is unrelated to the topic under discussion? If so, please don't. It's wasteful.

I agree that if the caster were trying to create the effect (i.e. cast it), then it would not work. Once cast, however, the lightning could be called while subsequently in an AMF because the effect has already been created.

The spell prohibits more than just casting spells though. It prohibits using spells. If you don't think that directing a spell to create an effect is using that spell to create an effect, we have a severe disconnect.

I don't think anything you've provided proves that an AMF breaks line of effect

If you honestly can't see an AMF's "barrier impervious to magic" as enough of a "solid barrier" for Line of Effect blockage, I'm not sure what else I can do to convince you. They often don't go so far as to use the same word ("barrier").

"Solid" must mean "solid with respect to magic", else incorporeal casters gain a huge unintended advantage.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Infiniti2000]

Out of curiosity, what is connecting the caster's will (the concentration on the spell that enables a standard action to summon down a lightning bolt) to the magic of the lightning bolt if not some sort of magic? If it is a magical effect that allows the caster to use nothing more than his will to call a lightning bolt, then this magic would also be suppressed.

I agree with your conclusion here, if it were explicitly stated. Unfortunately, we don't know what's the connection. Is it purely mental or is it magical? Obviously, we would think it's magical, but it's not stated. This type of non-statement is of course at the heart of most such debates.

Just to add further fuel to the fire of the LoE issue...

Excellent reasoning. That, so far, is the best argument yet. I'd say that that is sufficient to proof that AMF is "solid" for purposes of magical effects.

2) Were I in a game run by the dissenters, I would shamelessly exploit the ability to control vaguely targeted spells from within an AMF.

I honestly don't think there's much to exploit, so go for it.

3) I have yet to see the dissenting side of this argument offer more than "nuh uh" to my arguments -- and please keep in mind that assertions are not arguments (though I do cede and admire the point made to Nift regarding the distinction between within and while in; well played linguistic distinction).

I didn't respond because I didn't (and still don't) think it has any bearing on the points raised here. The reason I say this is because you are using a spread effect as an example, and the spell description is pretty explicit that that won't pass through the AMF. That in no way proves that it blocks line of effect, however. It's even less robust an argument than an inference, but I can't recall the exact term for it (false premise perhaps?). As a trivial rebuttal, consider the fact that a spread effect can go around corners, out of line of effect from the caster.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Wrong.

No, not wrong. Right.

(a) I use a spell while in an AMF.
(b) I use a spell within an AMF.

Both are explicitly prohibited.

No. Only "within" is explicitly prohibited. You can argue that "while in" is implicitly prohibited, but that's the best you can do.

There is no difference so far as the AMF is concerned. Or are you making a point about grammar which is unrelated to the topic under discussion? If so, please don't. It's wasteful.

All the rules are based on grammar, so your rebuttal here is quite self-serving. Are you seriously trying to get me to ignore grammar? In favor of what, may I ask?

The spell prohibits more than just casting spells though. It prohibits using spells. If you don't think that directing a spell to create an effect is using that spell to create an effect, we have a severe disconnect.

I've said before that I would agree that creating an effect would be blocked. You cannot cast call lightning while in an AMF. Granted. But, once cast you are no longer 'creating an effect'.

You may not like it, but unless you can come up with solid evidence to back up your claims, you can't prove that (1) AMF blocks line of effect (but see the previous post and my concession therein), or (2a) you need line of effect to call a lightning bolt once cast, (2b) calling lightning is a magical effect on the caster (i.e. dispellable, etc.).

 

[Nifft]

Only "within" is explicitly prohibited. You can argue that "while in" is implicitly prohibited, but that's the best you can do.

The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines.

An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration.

So:

1/ You can't cast while in, or within.
2/ You can't use spells cast outside while in, or within (since it's impervious to the latter, and the former is suppressed).

All the rules are based on grammar, so your rebuttal here is quite self-serving. Are you seriously trying to get me to ignore grammar? In favor of what, may I ask?

Well, reading the rules in their context, it looks like the more common interpretation (which is both) is what's intended. So IMHO splitting this hair is counter-productive to understanding the spell.

I've said before that I would agree that creating an effect would be blocked. You cannot cast call lightning while in an AMF. Granted. But, once cast you are no longer 'creating an effect'.

That's only true until you try to create an effect. Seriously, are you telling me that a lightning bolt isn't an effect, created by the spell? If it's not, where is it coming from?

You may not like it, but unless you can come up with solid evidence to back up your claims, you can't prove that (1) AMF blocks line of effect (but see the previous post and my concession therein), or (2a) you need line of effect to call a lightning bolt once cast, (2b) calling lightning is a magical effect on the caster (i.e. dispellable, etc.).

The only wonky thing about call lightning (as opposed to produce flame for example) is that you can't target call lightning with dispel magic, because the spell isn't on you, and yet it also isn't anywhere else (until it generates an Instantaneous effect, which is also tricky to target). Flaming sphere is similarly directed, but has a dispellable effect -- I'd rule the same way on that one, BTW. The spell exists even while you're in the AMF, but you can't direct it while you are within the AMF.

As to what I need to prove:

1) A barrier blocks LoE. AMF creates an impervious barrier. QED. (See previous post for quotes and links.)

2a) General rule: You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect.

2b) Nope, wrong. All I need to show is that the lightning bolt requires use of the spell. AMF doesn't just prohibit casting, it prevents using any spell or magical effect. It's a broad brush, and I'm guessing arguments like yours are why it's there.

- - -

Now, I will find it disrespectful if you don't back your claims up with some rules, links, etc. I've been doing a lot of the legwork in this conversation.

Start with "barrier", please. Prove that the barrier which prevents LoE isn't the barrier created by an AMF.

Alternately, prove that you somehow gain the benefit of a spell without "using" the spell.

Cheers, -- N

 

[zeroorez]

[Antilife Shell
You bring into being a mobile, hemispherical energy field that prevents the entrance of most types of living creatures.
The effect hedges out animals, aberrations, dragons, fey, giants, humanoids, magical beasts, monstrous humanoids, oozes, plants, and vermin, but not constructs, elementals, outsiders, or undead.
This spell may be used only defensively, not aggressively. Forcing an abjuration barrier against creatures that the spell keeps at bay collapses the barrier.]

One aspect of a barrier is that what it blocks cannot enter and is stopped if an attempt to enter it is made, just like walking repeatedly into a wall. I mention the antilife shell because it gives us an example of a magical barrier complete with the description of what it explicitly blocks.

Antimagic Field
“this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities”

So if we read this as impervious = solid then a spell or magical effect cannot enter the area. so if I walk into an antimagic field with my +2 sword it should be stopped from entering, thus if I charge in flailing my magical weapon to attack the vile mage I should have the weapon ripped from my hands upon entering the field.
But that’s not what happens instead the magical effect on the sword is suppressed while in the field and my attack happens normally after that.
So just how solid is the impervious barrier?

Next where does it read that Line of effect is magical?
Because if its not then its not blocked at all.
And if it is magical then just like a magical arrow that travels through an antimagic field it is only suppressed while traveling through and regains its abilities upon exiting the field.

 

[Nifft]

One aspect of a barrier is that what it blocks cannot enter and is stopped if an attempt to enter it is made, just like walking repeatedly into a wall. I mention the antilife shell because it gives us an example of a magical barrier complete with the description of what it explicitly blocks.

Paper is an example of a non-magical barrier. A big sheet of paper will block line of sight and line of effect.

The rest of your argument relies on all barriers behaving identically.

Next where does it read that Line of effect is magical?
Because if its not then its not blocked at all.
And if it is magical then just like a magical arrow that travels through an antimagic field it is only suppressed while traveling through and regains its abilities upon exiting the field.

That does not follow.

In an AMF, a magical arrow loses its magic, but remains an arrow ("and a Masterwork one at that"). The spell description tells us this.

A spell has no non-magical bits which can fly through the AMF.

Cheers, -- N

 

[zeroorez]

we are no longer talking about a spell going through the field.
we are talking about line of effect which is not magical or spell like or any of the other things the field blocks.

and to help you prove that line of effect is magical i will leave you with a quote from the SRD

Blindsense: Other creatures have blindsense, a lesser ability that lets the creature notice things it cannot see, but without the precision of blindsight. The creature with blindsense usually does not need to make Spot or Listen checks to notice and locate creatures within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature. Any opponent the creature cannot see has total concealment (50% miss chance) against the creature with blindsense, and the blindsensing creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.

note that here it is used in a compleatly non magical way

 

[Nifft]

we are no longer talking about a spell going through the field.

So I take it you concede point #1, which is that creating a lightning bolt involves using the spell, and thus you can't do it from inside an AMF?

If so, we can discuss line of effect.

Cheers, -- N

 

[DreamChaser]

this is because line of effect is a relative not absolute concept. The line of effect for a fireball cast on the prime material plane is different from the line of effect for a fireball cast on the ethereal plane (the things the affect one, will not necessarily the other).

In the case of blindsense, a blindsense based upon sound (such as that possessed by bats) would find LoE blocked by the silence spell. But for creatures that do not have a specific type of blindsense, silence would not block line of effect.

Keeping with a sensory concept, a creature with tremor sense standing upon a free floating island of stone with a 5' gap between it and other solid land would not be able to detect the movement of a creature across the gap because the empty space would serve as a barrier to the "effect" in question.

Detect magic could not sense a magical item on the far side of a AMF (unless, by some chance the Detect effect was able to encompass the whole of the AMF with the magical item on the far side and continuous areas of effect between both the caster and the item).

Trying to apply one absolute measure to a relative effect is useless; what must be done is approach each effect with a measure of what could block its line of effect (based upon the idea of a barrier blocking line of effect).

A sound effect is blocked by silence
A magic effect is blocked by AMF
a spread effect is blocked by a solid barrier

etc.

DC

 

[zeroorez]

you have not proved that the line of effect is magic
silence works on bats because it states in the bat entry that they use sound for the effect.
so if any thing we might be able to say that the line of effect needed for call lightning is for targeting and should then be blocked like line of sight. but that could alos be reading to much in to the spell because a caster who was blind should still be able to call bolts down within the range of the spell.

"using a spell in antimagic field."
if the spell is contained by the field then you cant use it.
but call lightning "the spell" is out side the field so it can still be used.
and the effect that it creates is outside the field thus it can still happen.



on a side question
control winds would you say that the wind speed in the antimagic field would be normal and not be the force specified by the caster? for this question i am just courious and it has nothing to do with the call lightning topic in fact we can say that the caster is not in an antimagic field.