call lightning

[Nifft]

Directing a call lightning spell to zap someone should certainly count as "using" it.

Indeed.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Infiniti2000]

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?

It is an effect, but what I'm saying is that it was created at the time of casting. All that is required later is to call it down, which is undefined. You may choose to interpret that as creating the lightning bolt on the spot. Someone else could choose to say that the lightning bolts are all created at casting time and fly above the caster's head somewhere. Who's right? Either person, as long as their choice of flavor does not restrict others if a rule is decided from that flavor. Why can't I choose the flavor description of actually calling down the bolts verbally, e.g. "Come on, down, bolt #3, you're on the Price is Right!" It's purely verbal, the bolts somehow understand, and we're good to go. And now when we get to the AMF rule, my interpretation allows me to call lightning, because I just need to talk, expending a standard action to do it.

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.

Back up my claims? Are you joking? Perhaps you've forgotten that my claim was that the rules are silent on AMF blocking line of effect. To prove they're silent, then, here's my quote: "". :\

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

I've already conceded to Dreamchaser's argument. Really, do you need to keep beating this horse?

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

I would say that a summoned monster running around outside of the AMF is definitely giving you a benefit.

 

[Falling Icicle]

It is an effect, but what I'm saying is that it was created at the time of casting. All that is required later is to call it down, which is undefined. You may choose to interpret that as creating the lightning bolt on the spot. Someone else could choose to say that the lightning bolts are all created at casting time and fly above the caster's head somewhere. Who's right? Either person, as long as their choice of flavor does not restrict others if a rule is decided from that flavor.

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. I, for one, enjoy using the long duration to my advantage, surprising my enemies with it. A visual effect accompanying me everywhere I go would ruin that. It would also add a physically manifested effect to target with things like dispel magic.

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.

Why can't I choose the flavor description of actually calling down the bolts verbally, e.g. "Come on, down, bolt #3, you're on the Price is Right!" It's purely verbal, the bolts somehow understand, and we're good to go. And now when we get to the AMF rule, my interpretation allows me to call lightning, because I just need to talk, expending a standard action to do it."

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.

 

[DreamChaser]

It is an effect, but what I'm saying is that it was created at the time of casting. All that is required later is to call it down, which is undefined.

No...it is clear defined. "However, each round after the first you may use a standard action (concentrating on the spell) to call a bolt."

The clear definition is "Concentrating on the spell" even if all of the bolts were created in advance (and cleverly hidden from all who view it), concentrating on a spell is using a spell, otherwise Illusionists would have a hey day with the image spells.

Really, saying that concentrating on a spell is not using a spell is like saying that maintaining a grapple is not an attack ("I attacked before, now I'm just continuing what I was doing and dealing damage each round...").

DC

 

[Falling Icicle]

Another thing, let's assume you are correct, that the spell's effect responds to the caster's verbal command (even though the spell never states that it is directed verbally). How does the spell know the caster's voice from someone elses? Even if it was intelligent enough to recognize the caster's voice, couldn't it be fooled by someone using an illusion spell to speak like the caster? Not only that, a silence spell would prevent the druid from controlling his call lightning effect. Again, you can't just add these sorts of things to spells. They may seem like nothing but harmless flavor, but they actually do have consquences in the game.

If the spell intended for the caster's control to work in this fashion, it would have said so. Actually, let's take a look at what the spell says.

"Immediately upon completion of the spell, and once per round thereafter, you may call down a 5-foot-wide, 30-foot-long, vertical bolt of lightning that deals 3d6 points of electricity damage. The bolt of lightning flashes down in a vertical stroke at whatever target point you choose within the spell’s range (measured from your position at the time). Any creature in the target square or in the path of the bolt is affected.

You need not call a bolt of lightning immediately; other actions, even spellcasting, can be performed. However, each round after the first you may use a standard action (concentrating on the spell) to call a bolt. You may call a total number of bolts equal to your caster level (maximum 10 bolts).

If you are outdoors and in a stormy area—a rain shower, clouds and wind, hot and cloudy conditions, or even a tornado (including a whirlwind formed by a djinni or an air elemental of at least Large size)—each bolt deals 3d10 points of electricity damage instead of 3d6.

This spell functions indoors or underground but not underwater."

Note that the directions the druid can give to the spell are very specific, and it also says the druid must *concentrate* on it to direct it. This strongly implies a mental link to the spell effect. After all, it would be pretty difficult (and much more time consuming than a standard action) to communicate to the spell verbally exactly where it should strike. And as I said before, adding a verbal or some other physical communication to the spell effect not only implies it is intelligent but also gives strategic opportunities to thwart it.

If the druid directs the spell with a mental link, which is the ONLY logical explanation given what we know about the spell, then we can only conclude that the bond between the caster and spell effect is magical in nature and thus blocked by the antimagic field. There is no way one can say that such a mental link can exist without magic. That is certainly beyond the realm of humanoid minds to accomplish, and even those beings who have such telepathic abilities do so with psionics, spells or some other supernatural means.

 

[Nifft]

It is an effect, but what I'm saying is that it was created at the time of casting. All that is required later is to call it down, which is undefined. You may choose to interpret that as creating the lightning bolt on the spot. Someone else could choose to say that the lightning bolts are all created at casting time and fly above the caster's head somewhere. Who's right? Either person, as long as their choice of flavor does not restrict others if a rule is decided from that flavor. Why can't I choose the flavor description of actually calling down the bolts verbally, e.g. "Come on, down, bolt #3, you're on the Price is Right!" It's purely verbal, the bolts somehow understand, and we're good to go. And now when we get to the AMF rule, my interpretation allows me to call lightning, because I just need to talk, expending a standard action to do it.

First, because verbally instructing something is usually a free action. Second, because verbally instructing something is a sonic effect (silence now really screws you -- it's not mere flavor). Third, because speaking requires the ability to move (so paralysis screws you -- it's not mere flavor). Fourth, because you are required to be able to speak (so wild shape screws you -- it's not mere flavor).

I'll repeat the rule of thumb from Hypersmurf: if it's in the spell's description, it's part of the spell. If it's not, it's not. So that's why summoned monsters have extra latitude: the languages they speak, for example, are not part of the spell, because they're in the monster's description, not the spell's text.

Note the difference here:

If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.

The spell provides no particular avenue of communication; in fact, it's possible that you are unable to communicate, and the spell's function is well defined in this case.

each round after the first you may use a standard action (concentrating on the spell) to call a bolt

The spell provides the only avenue of "communication"... thought calling it "communication" is a bit of a stretch. Really, what this line means is: "you may take a standard action each round and use the spell to create the spell's effect".

AMF prevents you from using any spell. So, you can't "communicate" with your lightning bolts. You can communicate with your summoned monsters as usual, because that's not actually part of the spell.

Cheers, -- N

 

[zeroorez]

for the last page of posts we have been disagreeing over the same points

#1 is Line of effect blocked by antimagic?

#2 is Concentrating on the spell a magical effect?

I cannot find rules to sway my interpretation of the spells.
No points made have shown us rules to change how we choose to read the spells.

So at this point I withdrawal from the discussion and if any of you should end up in a game world that I DM you know that you have full right to call down bolts of lightning in an antimagic field as often as you like, to a limit of one per caster level and a max of 10 of course.

 

[Hof]

</lurking>

These kind of discussions are always interesting. Let me just chime in by explaining why I agree with the 'AM blocks line of effect for magic' ruling.

As I see it, an anti-magic field does not actually block magic from entering, rather it keeps magic from existing within its area. This explains why a magic sword is not stopped by an AM field, yet is not magical while within it either. This also allows a +1 enhanced arrow, for example, to shoot through the field, because the magic upon it does not power its flight. And when it passes through it is magical once again.

On to purely magical effects. A line of effect is needed for magic to reach its target. But in an AM field, the magic is suppressed e.g. does not exist for all intents and purposes. And something which does not exist cannot travel on to reappear on the other side - there is no non-magical effect which can get it out.

Now I am unsure if a succesful targetting attempt is needed for a spell to resolve, otherwise a non instantaneous spell could resolve after the AM was removed from the line of effect.. which would be strange.
Also, the Imbue Arrow ability of arcane archers actually has some value. Even if it is situational.

As to the directing of an existing call lightning spell from within an animagic field: Regardless of when exactly the bolts are created, is not the directing of the spell a fine example of using the spell? Conversely, how can the druid call the lightning without using the spell?
And using magic of any kind within an AM field is impossible. So I agree that calling lightning in such a situation is not possible.

Hof.

 

[IanB]

No...it is clear defined. "However, each round after the first you may use a standard action (concentrating on the spell) to call a bolt."

The clear definition is "Concentrating on the spell" even if all of the bolts were created in advance (and cleverly hidden from all who view it), concentrating on a spell is using a spell, otherwise Illusionists would have a hey day with the image spells.

Really, saying that concentrating on a spell is not using a spell is like saying that maintaining a grapple is not an attack ("I attacked before, now I'm just continuing what I was doing and dealing damage each round...").

DC

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; it will not simply be suppressed. I can't see a way to rule one way on call lightning and the other way on, say, detect magic, personally.

It doesn't matter too much to me which answer ends up being right, but I think it does need to be consistent.

 

[DreamChaser]

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; it will not simply be suppressed. I can't see a way to rule one way on call lightning and the other way on, say, detect magic, personally.

It doesn't matter too much to me which answer ends up being right, but I think it does need to be consistent.

I agree. Any concentration duration spell would end when the caster entered an AMF. Essentially, by nature, concentration spells can persist only so long as they are continuously used, otherwise they cease.

DC