Hm. I suspect the reading the rules as intended you would only lose the one bolt. Because, once cast, the spell is working just fine on its own without you concentrating, it just doesn't do anything until you try to concentrate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are not concentrating to maintain or call down a bolt. Concentration rules do not apply.
The ongoing concentration rules for ongoing spells require you to spend a standard action every single round or the spell ends. The standard concentration rules only apply during the initial casting time. It's not a great fit either way.
The spell just tells us that calling down a bolt is something needing concentration, so it is not possible while raging. It doesn't even tell us whether it can be disrupted by things that can interrupt concentration such as damage, being entangled, hostile weather etc.
Not even if it provokes AoOs to call down a bolt.
I would ASSUME that it works like the lightning lord domain power (which is a SLA) but as this is the rules board assumptions don't really matter here.
But pure RAW calling down bolts can not be disrupted because it doesn't say it can and all the other rules we have are for other aspects of spells.
There is no other reason for the spell text to indicate "concentrating on the spell" if it does not intend you to use the concentration rules, and simply a poor choice of language if it's flavor text.
Sorry, missed that part. You are only concentrating on the spell during the initial casting and if you are using a standard action to call down a bolt. Normal concentration rules apply.
The original question is do you loose the whole spell or just one bolt. I think the RAW indicates that you loose the spell, but that doesn't make much sense since the spell has already been successfully cast. I would say that you loose that bolt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Call Lightning has no requirement to maintain the spell, you cannot lose it.
Duration 1 min./level
No concentration in the duration so it does not require "concentration to maintain the spell".
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. See concentration on page 206.
You can’t cast a spell while concentrating on another one. Some spells last for a short time after you cease concentrating.
Since Call Lightning does not have a duration of "concentration" the Concentration rule (quoted above) does not apply.
Summary: Calling a bolt cannot be disrupted or lost.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since it's not that type of spell, 'concentration' here must refer to concentration in the normal English sense (as it is in the Barbarian rage ability) and not in the 'concentration check' sense.
Duration-not concentration
Use-Standard Action
The word "concentration" never appears in the spell.
Each round after the first you may use a standard action (concentrating on the spell) to call a bolt.
As sited multiple times, concentration is called out specifically in the spell.
Each round after the first you may use a standard action (concentrating on the spell) to call a bolt.As sited multiple times, concentration is called out specifically in the spell.
Incorrect.
The word "concentrating" is not being used to describe duration, it is simply the common english usage of an existing word, not a description of a spell duration.
Like an attack, Call Lighting uses a standard action.
You don't roll concentration if someone readies an action to hit you in respone to your melee attack, same for this spell.
Reading it any other way is deliberately and maliciously misinterpreting the rules by assuming the the word "concentrating" can't be used other than to describe a game mechanic.
The duration of the spell is already listed.
It is not "concentration".
Using the spell requires a standard action. The contents of the text in brackets can (and should) be ignored, as it is not a description of duration, and thus, irrelevant to the caster if they are attacked while using the spell.
People too often assume that 'concentrate', 'concentrating', 'concentration' and any other variation of the word can only be used as a mechanical term.
This assumption is severely flawed, and often leads to bizarre and unfair rulings.
I advise using the duration as it is written, and treating this usage of the word 'concentrate' as it is intended: flavor text. Not rules text.
Crimeo, yes, it specifically states concentration without then specifying which concentration rules to use. Thus, we are left with it being flavor.
1) The concentration rules under the duration header (the quote I provided) are specific to a duration of Concentration.
2) The spell does not have a duration of Concentration.
3) The spell does not state to use the concentration rules under the duration header.
4) Since the spell does not have a duration of Concentration and it does not state otherwise you cannot use the concentration rules under the duration header for this spell.
So, you have a spell description with the word 'concentration', what rules do you use? The spell casting rules? The spell is already cast, there is no spell to be lost.
You are creating a problem where none exists. There is no rule to cover the usage of the word 'concentration' in the way this spell uses it. Neither the casting a spell use of 'concentration' nor the duration use of 'concentration' apply here.
The wording here would appear to be the standard english version of 'concentrating on a subject'. It is neither awkward, nor unflavorful. It is 'you were doing something else and now you are concentrating for a moment in order to perform another action'. It can be said that you are concentrating on your defense when you perform a Total Defense action. Does that mean you need to make a concentration check? No, it is the standard english version of concentrating.
Other spells that use 'concentrate' as the standard meaning of focusing your focus down to one thing:
You must concentrate to use an arcane eye. If you do not concentrate, the eye is inert until you again concentrate.
If you concentrate on a specific creature within 120 feet of you as a standard action, you can determine whether it has any spellcasting or spell-like abilities, whether these are arcane or divine (spell-like abilities register as arcane), and the strength of the most powerful spell or spell-like ability the creature currently has available for use.
(Funny note: Arcane Sight states that, unlike Detect Magic, it does not require concentration and then later says to concentrate.)
Each round, you concentrate on one target, who must be within range. You know if the target deliberately and knowingly speaks a lie by discerning disturbances in its aura caused by lying. The spell does not reveal the truth, uncover unintentional inaccuracies, or necessarily reveal evasions.
This spell creates a subtle illusion, causing any divination (scrying) spell used to view anything within the area of this spell to instead receive a false image (as the major image spell), as defined by you at the time of casting. As long as the duration lasts, you can concentrate to change the image as desired. While you aren’t concentrating, the image remains static.
There are MANY more examples of spells with this kind of wording that do not have a duration of concentration. Are they all 'awkward', 'unflavorful', or 'unnecessary'?
deliberately and maliciously misinterpretingExcept that I'm a player with a character who I WANT to be able to cast bolts without being susceptible to distraction. So I'm being malicious against myself?
Dismissing as "flavor text" when the authors go out of their way to add an awkward and completely unflavorful and unnecessary-if-not-for-rules parenthetical seems... imprudent.
I can see the technical argument you are making for why the text may still not apply or do anything, but best case scenario, it was a spell author trying to require concentration checks for bolts and doing a bad job of it, not intended flavor text.
But I can also see an argument against your conclusion:
1) The Concentration section of the magic rules only really talks about casting a spell initially.
2) The duration rules then effectively amend this, and tack on "oh also to maintain concentration, do all of that stuff too."
3) If you don't have a problem with #2, then why would you have a problem with a specific spell ALSO amending the base rules and saying in a similar fashion "oh also to call a lightning bolt for this one particular spell, do all of that stuff too" ? In both cases, it is other rules elsewhere tacking on additional relevant situations in which you should use rules that in their original location do not refer to those other situations. I don't see much of a difference.
*shrugs* If you want to treat every appearance of the word "concentrating" as rules text (per "Concentration"), go ahead.
There are times where that is appropriate, and if you feel this is one of them, I can't stop you.
I treat it as what it is: another word in the english language. It's appearance in this spell is tragic, as I feel that it was never intended to be used as duration, nor in any other mechanical sense.
The construction of the sentences used in this spell are concise and clear, and IMO, would not change one bit if the word "concentrating" had instead been "focusing" or any other synonym.
I really don't understand the fixation some people have with applying rules mechanics to every occurrence of the word "concentrate" (or any of it's variants, such as "concentrating")...
1) The concentration rules under the duration header (the quote I provided) are specific to a duration of Concentration.Yeah and the concentration rules under the call lightning spell are specific to call lightning.
I just can't say I really understand why you're cool with a separate rules section tacking on new qualifying situations in once case (duration), but not another (this spell).
So, you have a spell description with the word 'concentration', what rules do you use? The spell casting rules? The spell is already cast.Yes, just like you use those same rules for maintaining concentration, even though the spell is also already cast in that situation as well. Because a more specific set of rules directed you to tack it on in both cases.
That's not a problem as I see it. The only problem is the resulting minor confusion of at what level it cancels things when the check fails.
And incidentally yes, I would be inclined to say that all of the other example spells listed require concentration rolls if you are for example taking constant ambient damage while trying to scry through your arcane eye, etc.
*shrugs* If you want to treat every appearance of the word "concentrating" as rules textThis isn't about archery or showing up in the Sense Motive rules or something unrelated about concentrating on facial features, etc.
This is a situation where it says "concentrating on a spell" as a whole phrase seems very specific. And it's in a parenthetical that adds nothing in terms o flavor at all and is very out of place otherwise. If just a regular English word and not rules text, it would be redundant and bizarre.
Once again, if you want to apply rules text to every occurrence of the word, things are going to get weird for you.
How would you apply the Concentration rules to a Barbarians rage, for example?
I have been trying to convince a lot of people that usage of the word "concentrate" (or its derivations) does not have to invoke rules text, but it has been falling upon deaf ears.
Do as you wish.
Your reading of the spell introduces failure chances where there should be none, but I'm not in your game so I don't really care.
If you enjoy the game your way, you are playing correctly, and I have no right to question you.
So I will apologize for trying to answer your question, and wish you the best of luck.
How would you apply the Concentration rules to a Barbarians rageIt's not a spell, so it does not qualify as a more specific subset of rules underneath a more general umbrella. Which is how rules generally work in D&D.
Rules are a hierarchicial flow chart, with specific both trumping and referencing (to save space) more general rules up the flowchart above them.
In the case of a spell's text, it flows upward to more general rules about the school of magic it is in, then magic rules in general, then things like general action economy rules.
In the case of a barbarian's ability, it's not magic so it's on a whole different branch of the tree, and it flows all the way back up to the top of the most generic rules without ever getting to any magic rules.
You admit then that the word "concentrate" or "concentration" can be used without having to invoke rules text?
If you enjoy the game your way, you are playing correctly, and I have no right to question you.
This is the most correct answer to any question you have about anything in Pathfinder.
Crimeo, you seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying so lets see if I can clarify this.
There is no rules section covering concentrating on a spell that does not have a duration of concentration and after it has been cast.
There, clear enough?
Now, you are trying to apply rules to this, please..cite the rule. There is no rule in the spell that defines the effect of 'concentration'.
There are only TWO rules covering concentration.
1) Casting a spell
2) A spell with a duration of concentration.
Are you trying to say one of those rules applies here and if so, please cite where it states that it does.
This occurrence of "concentrate" is not a reference to the concentration rules elsewhere, it is simply an artifact of language. You have yet to show a rule that applies (edit: to it's use in the spell, since some people do not understand 'context').
If you enjoy the game your way, you are playing correctly, and I have no right to question you.This is the most correct answer to any question you have about anything in Pathfinder.
Yeah, I spend WAY too much time trying to convince people that you can just treat a word as a word, not a rule.
*shrugs*
If these threads are any indication of other gaming groups, I'm blessed with the players I have.
This occurrence of "concentrate" is not a reference to the concentration rules elsewhere, it is simply an artifact of language. You have yet to show a rule that applies.
While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.
This rule would apply.
This occurrence of "concentrate" is not a reference to the concentration rules elsewhere, it is simply an artifact of language. You have yet to show a rule that applies.While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.This rule would apply.
Dammit, you mean my Barbarian has limitations on his spellcasting now?
*flips table*
Just a Guess, that is not relevant to what we are discussing.
We are not discussing when you cannot use concentration based abilities. What we are discussing, and what my comment was in reference to, is that Crimeo has yet to show a rule that defines how concentration is used in that context.
So...good job on taking my comment out of context. You win a cookie! :)
This occurrence of "concentrate" is not a reference to the concentration rules elsewhere, it is simply an artifact of language. You have yet to show a rule that applies.While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.This rule would apply.Dammit, you mean my Barbarian has limitations on his spellcasting now?
*flips table*
Without the text about concentration he could have cast the spell before starting to rage and used it while raging. Not as a single class barbarian, that is, certainly.
@Gauss: Thx *munch*
Crimeo, You are taking a single word way out of context. That word in no way references the rules you state that it references.
IF that word is a reference to those rules then every other use of that word must also reference them.
Lets put it another way, are you supposed to make a concentration check every time you memorize spells? If you say no, then why does it tell you that you must "concentrate" to memorize spells? What about deciphering scrolls? It tells you you must concentrate for 1 minute to decipher them? By your interpretation (a single instance of concentrate with no additional wording) I must use the concentration rules for deciphering a scroll.
In any case, please quote where it references the rules for casting without it simply using the word 'concentrate' (or its variations).
You are saying this is specific vs general, but for there to be a case of specific vs general it must specifically state what it is changing. This is not the case here.
Edit: for clarity, show how "concentrate" in this instance either applies to "concentrate on casting" or "concentrate to maintain" because the spell does not reference either rule. The spell is not being cast and it is not being maintained.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I understand your problem. Are you new to 3.x? Started with Pathfinder? You seem to believe that every word is carefully chosen to have rules applicability.
Guess what? This is a very very messed up system as far as language is concerned. Some of the Devs have even stated it.
It was built back in 3.0 upon the bones of 2nd edition, rebuilt in 3.5, rebuilt again in Pathfinder. There is so many language artifacts in this game that it often doesn't have any sort of internal consistency if you adhere to the letter of the rules like you are trying to.
Back to the rules, yes, concentration only applies if something bad happens to you.
But the thing you are missing is that Pathfinder specifically changed concentration from being a catchall skill that could be used for 'anything that needed concentration' to 'casting or maintaining a spell, spell-like ability, or certain magic items such as spell-completion'. They specifically changed it from a skill that affected anything that might have anything even remotely to do with concentrating to something that only applies to casting and maintaining spells or spell like things.
So we ask:
Is this a case of casting a spell? No
Is this a case of maintaining a spell? No
Is this a spell-like ability? No
Is this a magic item requiring concentration? No
Is there any reference anywhere in the spell that states it is subject to the concentration rules other than the incidental inclusion of the word concentrate? No
Since the answer is all no, this is either a case of a "rule" (your position) with no rules to govern it OR "language" (my position) that does not have any rules to govern it (because it is not rule specific).
Gauss nailed it.
Thanks for reading my mind from where ever you are, sorting through the random mish-mash of jibber-jabber that is my speech center and typing out PRECISELY what I wanted to say.
:D
Crimeo, you really seem set on trying to nerf yourself on this spell, I don't think anyone would argue against THAT, but if you tried to enforce this upon another player...
Well that's why this debate is happening.
The last line of what Gauss wrote, IMO, is the most relevant.
Context counts, please remember that.
Context counts, please remember that.Agreed! And in this context, it would be utterly bizarre for them to put that parenthetical in there, which is awkward to the flow and adds no meaningful flavor (of COURSE I'm thinking about the lightning...), unless meant as a rules clarification. In which case it makes perfect sense for it to be there, because precisely due to this not being a duration:concentration spell, it would need clarification to point out a check is needed. Context is the main reason it jumped out at me in the first place.
I'm just gonna agree to disagree with your assessment and leave it at that.
Note that the parenthetical in question appears to have been copy-pasted from the 3.5 rules, when concentration rules were different.
Crimeo, where I got my list: I did a search in the CRB for every instance of "concentrat" (without quotes) and then I read the rules. Perhaps you should do that.
Regarding your deflection by using Improved Disarm:
1) In order for there to be a change in the general rule the more specific rule MUST STATE IT.
2) The spell DOES NOT STATE IT.
3) Thus, there are only two times you need to make a concentration check: when you are casting (Spell, SLA, spell trigger) or when you are maintaining a spell.
Until you can show something that gives a different time that you need to make a concentration check then you have NOT shown a case of specific over general. This is where you keep failing to make your case.
In any case, while it may be reasonable to houserule a concentration check when damaged (or whatever) while calling a lightning bolt it is not supported by the rules. This is simply not in the rules as one of the situations where a concentration check is required (not casting, not maintaining) and the spell has no wording that indicates a new situation.
As an aside, honestly, this is an artifact. The spell's concentrate wording is the exact same as in 3.5 when concentration had a wider focus. Grab a PHB and check yourself.
Crimeo, you keep saying Call Lightning is another exception. But you have yet to show the text IN Call Lightning where it states the exception. Until you do so we are spinning our wheels discussing this.
Please, post the quote and bold the specific text that states the rule exception. Note: "(concentrating on the spell)" is not a rules exception. It does not state how it works.
Here is an example of a specific exception:
Perfect Self: At 20th level, a monk becomes a magical creature. He is forevermore treated as an outsider rather than as a humanoid (or whatever the monk’s creature type was) for the purpose of spells and magical effects. Additionally, the monk gains damage reduction 10/chaotic, which allows him to ignore the first 10 points of damage from any attack made by a nonchaotic weapon or by any natural attack made by a creature that doesn’t have similar damage reduction. Unlike other outsiders, the monk can still be brought back from the dead as if he were a member of his previous creature type.
See how it is a specific exception? It states to follow rules X, then provides exception Y.
How does Call Lightning tell you to follow rules X and then make exception Y?
Crimeo, the problem with your logic is that all of the instances where Attacks of Opportunity are called out as needing to happen do not also need additional rules to explain how they work. If they do need additional rules to explain how they work then they do so.
In this case, there are no extra rules to explain how a section on casting a spell, or a section on maintaining a spell, apply.
Ie: there is no exception here and thus, it is not a reference.
Since you refuse to accept that it needs an exception and the spell is not currently providing one there is no point debating this further with you. As usual, you (or your GM) can house rule this any way you want to penalize people using Call Lightning any way you want. But it is not in the rules to do so.