Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DreamChaser" data-source="post: 3642163" data-attributes="member: 1190">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.Just to add further fuel to the fire of the LoE issue:So:1: The spell states the the barrier is impervious2: Impervious is synonymous with solid (not exact in definition, but very near in meaning)Thus: Antimagic field creates a solid barrier.1: Antimagic field creates a solid barrier2: A solid barrier blocks line of effectThus: Antimagic field bocks line of effect.Of course, as with anything else in D&D there is room for interpretation. I suppose that one could argue that mere linguistic standards are insufficient to support the rules of a game that takes place entirely in words, both written and oral. Even then I freely admit that there is some room for interpretation in this (as well as my above) logic. My first syllogism in this post relies upon analogous meanings rather than exact matches (though the linguist in me can't help but wonder if any two words ever share exactly the same meaning).I can say three things for sure:1) I would never allow a caster to control call lightning from within an AMF in a game for which I was the GM.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.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).DC</blockquote>

Verification