Question Regarding TO Necromancer: Making Wights Friendly

[Doctor Despair]

I saw some discussion in a thread recently about bypassing Animate Dead HD limits, and so I was puzzling to myself about what a build based around using a variant of the Locate City Bomb trick could look like. However, I've hit a roadblock. This build...

Spoiler: Wizard 5, Incantatrix 2 Build

Show

Level 1	Wizard	Level 1 Feat: Corpsecrafter Racial Bonus Feat: Destructive Retribution Vile Feat (Elder Evil Worship): Evil Brand
Intermediate Fey Bloodline Level (does not contribute to ECL)	N/A	+2 on Hide Checks
Level 2	Wizard	N/A
Level 3	Wizard	Level 3 Feat: Tomb-Tainted Soul
Level 4	Wizard	Bloodline Bonus Feat: Iron Will, +1 to Int
Level 5	Wizard	Wizard Bonus Feat: Fell Drain, Vile Feat: Lichloved
Level 6	Incantatrix	Level 6 Feat: Snowcasting, Incantatrix Bonus Feat: Flash Frost
Level 7	Incantatrix	Level 4 spellslots for Snowcasted Flash-Frosted Fell Locate City

... allows us to use a form of the Locate City Bomb trick (cast Locate City (70 mile radius) with metamagics Snowcasting (cold subtype), Flash Frost (2 points of cold damage), and Fell Drain (no-save negative level on taking damage from the spell)) to kill every 1HD or less creature in the radius, and as we know...

A character with negative levels at least equal to her current level, or drained below 1st level, is instantly slain. Depending on the creature that killed her, she may rise the next night as a monster of that kind. If not, she rises as a wight.

So the next night, each of these creatures would rise as 4HD wights and, presumably, wreak havoc and make more wights. Sadly, as you did it with a divination spell and not a necromantic spell, they won't explode on death. However, while this is effective for bio-terrorism (in the sense that you terrorize anything biological), it leaves you with a problem: this fails to help or protect the necromancer. The wights aren't controlled or even friendly to him, so this problem is as much his as anyone else's. It's tough to control 70 miles-worth of wights. The easy answer is "just be undead," but Snowcasting requires you to have a con score, and I'm not aware of any other way to give it the cold subtype. There's Violate Spell to give it the evil subtype, but I don't think that works with Energy Substitution.

At first, I thought to try to make the wights friendly or at least neutral to the caster, but Lichloved only works on mindless undead.

Then, I thought to make the caster immune to the effects of the wights, but while tomb-tainted soul helps with the energy drain, it does nothing for the negative levels, nor the plain-old physical damage they deal.

Diplomacy is always an option, and we don't even need the feat tax of Undead Empathy as the Wights are intelligent, but that would delay the build for things like Binder dips to pump/optimize that stat, and diplomancers are already broken without Locate City shenanigans.

The Wights' Create Spawn ability has no HD limit on how many they can control, nor does it specify how they must slay them, so if one were somehow to bypass the con restriction on Snowcasting, it could control all the wights created that way. I was considering using Undead Leadership to take a Wight cohort, retraining its level 1 and 3 feats into Flash Frost and Fell Drain, and having it level to Cleric 2, taking Divine Metamagic at ECL 6, and using the Incantatrix's Cooperative Metamagic to add on Snowcasting to ITS Flash Frosted, Fell Draining Locate City... but I wasn't sure how that would interact. Can an Incantatrix add Snowcasting to a spell before the caster adds their metamagic? If not, their spell would be ineligible for Flash Frost and, thereby, for Fell Drain... Not to mention this strategy delays the effect until ECL 8.

There's always the old Wand of Hide from Undead, I suppose. Good for destroying an enemy kingdom, even if you, personally, gain nothing from it.

So here I come to the playground: is anyone familiar with an alternative to Snowcasting, or a way for an Undead to have a con score, or whether energy substitution works with violate spell, or how Cooperative Metamagic works, or perhaps something I've overlooked here?

[emeraldstreak]

Check Libris Mortis. As a minimum, Greater Unholy Shrouds may offer an alternative undead.

[Doctor Despair]

Check Libris Mortis. As a minimum, Greater Unholy Shrouds may offer an alternative undead.

Looks like that can be used to acquire Slaymates without having to RNG one from an encounter to command. 3,600 gold allows us to use them as reducers from pretty early by WBL (1 at 5, or 2 at 6). Since we only went to ECL 7 for the fourth level spell, this would let us bring this online at level 6. Doesn't help with making ourselves safe from the results, but it does help the build come online earlier, which is of value. :)

Edit: Along with Hide from Undead and Diplomacy, I suppose there's also Disguise

[NotASpiderSwarm]

Looks like that can be used to acquire Slaymates without having to RNG one from an encounter to command. 3,600 gold allows us to use them as reducers from pretty early by WBL (1 at 5, or 2 at 6). Since we only went to ECL 7 for the fourth level spell, this would let us bring this online at level 6. Doesn't help with making ourselves safe from the results, but it does help the build come online earlier, which is of value. :)

Edit: Along with Hide from Undead and Diplomacy, I suppose there's also Disguise

Okay, I might be blind, how do Lesser Undead Shrouds get you a Slaymate? Lesser ones can only create Ghasts unless I'm misreading something about either the item or the Slaymate.

[Doctor Despair]

Okay, I might be blind, how do Lesser Undead Shrouds get you a Slaymate? Lesser ones can only create Ghasts unless I'm misreading something about either the item or the Slaymate.

Misstyped the price, but there's a different version available in a web supplement of some sort.

Shrouds of the Unholy: These shrouds, like shrouds of the holy, look like ordinary funerary wrappings for dead bodies and are often decorated with symbols and icons representing the dead rising. If a dead body is wrapped in the shroud, and the command word spoken, the body will return as undead. The type of undead it returns as is determined by the speaker of the command word. The undead creature is not under anyone's control when it rises. Wrapping a body takes 10 minutes. The magic of the shrouds is useable only once, after which the wrapping becomes ordinary, fine cloth.

Caster Level: 20th; Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item, animate dead, create undead, or create greater undead as appropriate; Market Price: 1,550 gp (animate dead), 12,250 gp (create undead), or 16,000 (create greater undead); Weight: 10 lbs.

That sticks us at a 1,550 price for the effect according to the text, giving us one at level 3 (no access to Command Undead yet, so not wise), or three at level 4, which allows us to do the trick on a human at ECL 4 instead of 7, which is fun.

[Nifft]

... allows us to use a form of the Locate City Bomb trick (cast Locate City (70 mile radius) with metamagics Snowcasting (cold subtype), Flash Frost (2 points of cold damage)

I think this doesn't actually work, because it's "2 extra damage" and as extra damage must attach to a pre-existing damage source before it can be applied.

[JNAProductions]

I think this doesn't actually work, because it's "2 extra damage" and as extra damage must attach to a pre-existing damage source before it can be applied.

Is that a rule or an English-language parsing?

[Doctor Despair]

Is that a rule or an English-language parsing?

I'm hoping it's the latter, because I realized I was absolutely overlooking a simple fix.

Spoiler: Primordial Unseeley Fey Magic-Blooded Necropolitan Half-Giant (LA +1)

Show

Level 1	Wizard	Level 1 Feat: Corpsecrafter Vile Feat (Elder Evil Worship): Evil's Blessing
Intermediate Fey Bloodline Level (does not contribute to ECL)	N/A	+2 on Hide Checks
Level 2	Wizard	Buy off the 1LA before reaching level 3
Level 3	Wizard	Level 3 Feat: Nimble Bones
Level 4	Wizard	Bloodline Bonus Feat: Iron Will, +1 to Int
Level 5	Wizard	Wizard Bonus Feat: Fell Drain, Vile Feat: Evil Brand
Level 6	Incantatrix	Level 6 Feat: Undead Leadership, Incantatrix Bonus Feat: Chain Spell (for Command Undead)
Level 7	Incantatrix	Cooperative Metamagic class feature to add Fell Drain to cohort's spells

Spoiler: If Taint is being used...

Show

[If Taint from Heroes of Horror is being used, roll random benefits from these tables and grab two bonus feats.

Mild Corruption:
* Skin Seeps (+2 Escape Artist/Grapple)
Moderate Corruption:
* Bones Thicken (+2 Str)
* Paralyzed Face: +1 Bluff
* Skin Thickens: +1 AC
Severe Corruption:
* Lich Eyes: 60 feet dark vision, or +30 existing
* Wrigglers: +2 Intimidate
Mild Depravity:
* Bestial: +2 Handle Animal. Ride, Wild Empathy
* Prophetic: accurate prophecy 1/week
Severe Depravity:
* Hubristic: Divine Healing doesn't affect you
Taint Bonus Feat: Bolster Resistance
Taint Bonus Feat: Destructive Retribution]

Take a living wizard as your level 5 cohort; have him take or retrain into Snowcasting/Flash Frost, Tomb-Tainted Soul, Vile: Brand of Evil, and Vile: Lichloved. He casts the Snowcasted Flash Frost Locate City; you use Incantatrix to add on the Fell Drain. This allows you to be undead, so even if the Wights insist on killing the wizard, all you lose is some leadership score before you grab a properly undead cohort.

The rest of the feats are just to be a better necromancer. Animate a bunch of undead and use Undead Leadership to make them followers to bypass the HD requirement, then chain Command Undead on stronger undead you find or animate in this undead wasteland. Use your cohort to command even more undead, and the standard desecrate/ rod of Undead Mastery tricks to multiple both your limits.

[Nifft]

Is that a rule or an English-language parsing?

I think it's the rules. Do you know of a rule which states that you are allowed to apply extra damage to non-damaging effects, like Sneak Attack on a Touch of Idiocy spell, or on an Antimagic Ray?


You need to find a way for the rules to let you:

a) get the area of a detection spell count as a spell "that affect[s] an area", not merely has an area;

b) apply extra damage when there is no base damage; and even then

c) Flash Frost Spell deals 2 damage to "targets in the area", so even if the above two were solved, what would happen is that you'd deal 2 damage to each city, but not any creatures (unless there's a creature which is also a city, and there probably ought to be such a beast, but that's an aside).


There are rules about adding some types of extra damage to non-HP damage spells, like this:

Spoiler: Complete Arcane

Show

... but in general nothing allows you to add extra damage when there is no damage, and nothing in the rules allows you to turn detection into "affecting an area", and then you'd need to make being detected count as a "target" for things which aren't detected.


Those are 3 significant gaps which this thing fails to bridge; there may be more.

[Doctor Despair]

I think it's the rules. Do you know of a rule which states that you are allowed to apply extra damage to non-damaging effects, like Sneak Attack on a Touch of Idiocy spell, or on an Antimagic Ray?

Before addressing whether it works in this instance, I think we should pause and recognize that Sneak Attack and Flash Frost are very different effects, save for the fact that they both use the phrase "extra damage". Apples to oranges.

You need to find a way for the rules to let you:

a) get the area of a detection spell count as a spell "that affect[s] an area", not merely has an area;

I suppose that's an argument in semantics, but being sensed or located is definitely an effect in in-game terms.

b) apply extra damage when there is no base damage; and even then

Is there a rule that says you can't apply extra damage to a spell that doesn't deal damage? Or that restricts it? A plain reading doesn't seem to preclude it (it is extra in the sense that it is more than the spell normally has).

c) Flash Frost Spell deals 2 damage to "targets in the area", so even if the above two were solved, what would happen is that you'd deal 2 damage to each city, but not any creatures (unless there's a creature which is also a city, and there probably ought to be such a beast, but that's an aside).

I suppose that's another discussion to have. If we allow that targets in the area would default to cities, I suppose we'd have to look for an in-game definition for city. I suspect that it is very much tied to population in dnd, which would imply that, based on your restrictive reading, all the creatures living in any city in the radius would be affected, but not creatures living in towns, villages, etc.

[InvisibleBison]

Is there a rule that says you can't apply extra damage to a spell that doesn't deal damage? Or that restricts it? A plain reading doesn't seem to preclude it (it is extra in the sense that it is more than the spell normally has).

In D&D, the rules say what you can do, not what you can't. Unless there's a specific rule saying you can do something, you can't do it. That's why fighters can't cast fireball - there's no rule saying they can't, after all, but there's also no rule saying that they can.

[Doctor Despair]

In D&D, the rules say what you can do, not what you can't. Unless there's a specific rule saying you can do something, you can't do it. That's why fighters can't cast fireball - there's no rule saying they can't, after all, but there's also no rule saying that they can.

Yes, but Flash Frost reads...

This metamagic feat can be applied only to spells that have the cold descriptor and that affect an area. A flash frost spell deals an extra 2 points of cold damage per level of the spell to all targets in the area.

The feat says it can be applied to a spell with the cold descriptor (Snowcasting) and that affect an area (Locate City does). The system says that we can apply this feat to this spell, which then confers the benefit that the spell deals an extra 2 points of cold damage. In this case, unless it explicitly is written down that extra damage cannot be applied to a spell that doesn't deal damage of its own, the text seems very clear about what outcome we should expect.

I would disagree that asking for a rule saying we cannot apply that extra damage is like a fighter asking where it says they aren't allowed to cast fireball; I would say a more appropriate analogy would be a fighter asking if they can cast fireball if they took a feat that says they gain the ability to "cast an extra casting of fireball each day." Normally, Wizards gates things like that being prerequisites, but we still find ourselves here regardless.

Edit: I suppose, to be more concise, the wording of Flash Frost seems to be specific rules saying we can do this thing. Unless there is some sort of clause that would override that wording (that I am unaware of), it seems like it should work. Since we have rules saying we can do this, unless we find stronger rules sayong we cannot do this, we should be able to do this.

[Nifft]

Before addressing whether it works in this instance, I think we should pause and recognize that Sneak Attack and Flash Frost are very different effects, save for the fact that they both use the phrase "extra damage". Apples to oranges.

If you want the feat works differently from the extra damage provided by Sneak Attack, critical hits, Bane weapons, and so forth, then you need to find a rule which allows it to function at all.

I suppose that's an argument in semantics, but being sensed or located is definitely an effect in in-game terms.

There is a spell effect.

The spell effect has an area in which things must be in order to be detected.

The spell effect is that a thing was detected, which affects the caster (increase in knowledge) but that's all.

Is there a rule that says you can't apply extra damage to a spell that doesn't deal damage? Or that restricts it? A plain reading doesn't seem to preclude it (it is extra in the sense that it is more than the spell normally has).

You normally can't add +x to null. This is why spells that provide an enhancement bonus to Natural Armor need to provide an exception telling you what to do when you have no natural armor (like a human). This feat provides no such exception.

I suppose that's another discussion to have. If we allow that targets in the area would default to cities, I suppose we'd have to look for an in-game definition for city. I suspect that it is very much tied to population in dnd, which would imply that, based on your restrictive reading, all the creatures living in any city in the radius would be affected, but not creatures living in towns, villages, etc.

I'd argue that the spell does not affect its area, since nothing in the area is changed.

But if it did have an area of effect, the targets can't be creatures at all. Creatures aren't detected, just cities. The only possible creature affected would be the caster, if you buy that the knowledge imparted is the spell affecting a target.

Most cities presumably are built with materials that have a Hardness high enough to ignore 2 points of cold damage.

[NotASpiderSwarm]

Misstyped the price, but there's a different version available in a web supplement of some sort.

***
Shrouds of the Unholy: These shrouds, like shrouds of the holy, look like ordinary funerary wrappings for dead bodies and are often decorated with symbols and icons representing the dead rising. If a dead body is wrapped in the shroud, and the command word spoken, the body will return as undead. The type of undead it returns as is determined by the speaker of the command word. The undead creature is not under anyone's control when it rises. Wrapping a body takes 10 minutes. The magic of the shrouds is useable only once, after which the wrapping becomes ordinary, fine cloth.

Caster Level: 20th; Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item, animate dead, create undead, or create greater undead as appropriate; Market Price: 1,550 gp (animate dead), 12,250 gp (create undead), or 16,000 (create greater undead); Weight: 10 lbs.
***

That sticks us at a 1,550 price for the effect according to the text, giving us one at level 3 (no access to Command Undead yet, so not wise), or three at level 4, which allows us to do the trick on a human at ECL 4 instead of 7, which is fun.

...Okay, the RAI is clearly that the item should let you raise the target as the spell used to create it, otherwise why have the more expensive versions, but RAW, it does seem to be just "any undead you can name". That seems stupidly broken.

[Nifft]

and that affect an area (Locate City does).

Prove that the area is affected.

Again, the spell does have an area, but it's not a spell which affects an area.

The only effect is knowledge imparted to the caster.

unless it explicitly is written down that extra damage cannot be applied to a spell that doesn't deal damage of its own, the text seems very clear about what outcome we should expect.

"When you roll damage, add 2 more of this type."

That's the clear and obvious meaning.

Your attempted usage does not qualify for that meaning.

I would disagree that asking for a rule saying we cannot apply that extra damage is like a fighter asking where it says they aren't allowed to cast fireball; I would say a more appropriate analogy would be a fighter asking if they can cast fireball if they took a feat that says they gain the ability to "cast an extra casting of fireball each day." Normally, Wizards gates things like that being prerequisites, but we still find ourselves here regardless.

The rules are pretty clear on that, though. If a Fighter takes a level of a class which says "+1 level arcane spellcasting", the Fighter does not gain any levels of arcane spellcasting.

Not unless there's additional text which provides an exception, such as 3.0e Contemplative had for divine spellcasting.

Edit: I suppose, to be more concise, the wording of Flash Frost seems to be specific rules saying we can do this thing. Unless there is some sort of clause that would override that wording (that I am unaware of), it seems like it should work. Since we have rules saying we can do this, unless we find stronger rules sayong we cannot do this, we should be able to do this.

No, you need rules to actively let you do things.

This was explained upthread with the Fighter's fireball fiasco.

When you want the rules to do extraordinary things, you need extraordinary rules support.

You don't even have basic rule support here.

[Doctor Despair]

If you want the feat works differently from the extra damage provided by Sneak Attack, critical hits, Bane weapons, and so forth, then you need to find a rule which allows it to function at all.

Those aren't general rules governing extra damage; they are specific rules governing extra damage from sneak attack, or those spells. I would never say that the restrictions on extra damage for sneak attack would apply to Bane, for example. Unless there are specific rules describing how extra damage works, and not just how they work in the context of those spells or abilities, then we have no reason to think that extra damage requires original damage. Your argument is predicated on the line of thought that all extra damage effects require some original source of damage, therefore Flash Frost must also require original damage; however, if Flash Frost does not require original damage, then not all extra damage effects require original damage. I can't recall the name of the logical fallacy, but you can't use Flash Frost requiring original damage as evidence that all extra damage effects require original damage, and if there is no specific rule describing or restricting when extra damage can be applied, then we must use a plain text reading based on each spell -- and not, say, Sneak Attack.

There is a spell effect.

The spell effect has an area in which things must be in order to be detected.

The spell effect is that a thing was detected, which affects the caster (increase in knowledge) but that's all.

Mind Blank (and similar effects like God Blooded of Vecna) protects the wearer from information gathering from divination spells or effects. Locate City affects everything that it gathers information on.

You normally can't add +x to null. This is why spells that provide an enhancement bonus to Natural Armor need to provide an exception telling you what to do when you have no natural armor (like a human). This feat provides no such exception.

This is another poor example because creatures without natural armor have an effective armor of zero. If anything, this could be used as evidence that, unless specified as null, the value of things defaults to zero, although I won't make that claim,, as its ultimately unnecessary to prove this point. If there is an explicitly written rule telling us that we can't add X to null, that would be a big step towards disproving this application of Flash Frost.

I'd argue that the spell does not affect its area, since nothing in the area is changed.

But if it did have an area of effect, the targets can't be creatures at all. Creatures aren't detected, just cities. The only possible creature affected would be the caster, if you buy that the knowledge imparted is the spell affecting a target.

Most cities presumably are built with materials that have a Hardness high enough to ignore 2 points of cold damage.

Where does it say cities are buildings? Cities, again, could very much include creatures in them, as iirc 3.5 measures cities in terms of number of creatures within, not number of buildings.

Edit:

"When you roll damage, add 2 more of this type."

That's the clear and obvious meaning.

Your attempted usage does not qualify for that meaning.

I'd disagree with you there. If that's what they wanted to say, they would have written it as such. You can argue RAI, and if they'd written it that way, we wouldn't be having this discussion, bt that's not what they wrote.

The rules are pretty clear on that, though. If a Fighter takes a level of a class which says "+1 level arcane spellcasting", the Fighter does not gain any levels of arcane spellcasting.

Not unless there's additional text which provides an exception, such as 3.0e Contemplative had for divine spellcasting.

In that hypothetical, it wasn't a spellcasting level, it was an additional casting of fireball; you seem to have misread that. However, as it's a hypothetical, there's no need to get off-topic and debate that.

No, you need rules to actively let you do things.

This was explained upthread with the Fighter's fireball fiasco.

When you want the rules to do extraordinary things, you need extraordinary rules support.

You don't even have basic rule support here.

The feat Flash Frost offers rule support. You are insisting that extra damage cannot be applied when there is no original damage, despite a plain reading not automatically yielding that. I asked for a source; you pointed to instances where extra damage was conferred upon dealing damage. I said yes, but where does it say that those abilities worked that way because that's the only way they can work? You remain silent on that matter. I would hold that there is no such rule; some instances of extra damage (Sneak Attack, Bane, etc) are conferred upon dealing damage; others are conferred without needing to deal damage (Flash Frost). If you have no rule that describes that extra damage requires an original damage, then there are no grounds to dismiss this feat interaction, as Flash Frost otherwise clearly provides that targets in the area take the damage by merit of being in the area.

[Nifft]

Those aren't general rules governing extra damage; they are specific rules governing extra damage from sneak attack, or those spells. I would never say that the restrictions on extra damage for sneak attack would apply to Bane, for example. Unless there are specific rules describing how extra damage works, and not just how they work in the context of those spells or abilities, then we have no reason to think that extra damage requires original damage. Your argument is predicated on the line of thought that all extra damage effects require some original source of damage, therefore Flash Frost must also require original damage; however, if Flash Frost does not require original damage, then not all extra damage effects require original damage. I can't recall the name of the logical fallacy, but you can't use Flash Frost requiring original damage as evidence that all extra damage effects require original damage, and if there is no specific rule describing or restricting when extra damage can be applied, then we must use a plain text reading based on each spell -- and not, say, Sneak Attack.

My argument is that if you have Weapon Specialization (ray) and you hit with ray of fatigue, you do not deal 2 damage.

If you have +2d6 sneak attack and you hit with a ray of fatigue, you do not deal 2d6 damage.

You don't get to deal damage because no rule says you deal damage, so there's nothing for you to add your extra damage upon.

Regarding your nameless "fallacy" -- remember that I've been using plenty of more-common extra damage examples. Nothing in my argument depends on something specific to the feat.

Mind Blank (and similar effects like God Blooded of Vecna) protects the wearer from information gathering from divination spells or effects. Locate City affects everything that it gathers information on.

That does not follow.

Being immune to detection does not mean being anyone is being affected.

When I look out on the city, I see lots of people, but I'm not affecting them. If someone in my field of view were invisible, that person would escape detection, and I still wouldn't affect any of them.

This is another poor example because creatures without natural armor have an effective armor of zero.

Incorrect, and that's a core thing you're misunderstanding.

When something just plain doesn't exist, it's not the same as having a value of "0".

See here for a common example of this: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAb...m#nonabilities

Where does it say cities are buildings? Cities, again, could very much include creatures in them, as iirc 3.5 measures cities in terms of number of creatures within, not number of buildings.

Well, if you saw 50,000 Mongolian nomads riding towards you, would you call that a "city"?

If you did, you'd be wrong: it would be a nomadic horde, and your spell wouldn't detect it.

Population is insufficient.

[Doctor Despair]

My argument is that if you have Weapon Specialization (ray) and you hit with ray of fatigue, you do not deal 2 damage.

If you have +2d6 sneak attack and you hit with a ray of fatigue, you do not deal 2d6 damage.

You don't get to deal damage because no rule says you deal damage, so there's nothing for you to add your extra damage upon.

Regarding your nameless "fallacy" -- remember that I've been using plenty of more-common extra damage examples. Nothing in my argument depends on something specific to the feat.

Spoiler: Sneak Attack

Show

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

Sneak Attack specifies that it deals extra damage on an attack. Additional rules specify that you vN apply sneak attack in other situations. Flash Frost specifies that it deals 2 extra damage to targets within the area of the spell. Both abilities don't trigger because original damage was dealt; they trigger because the conditions in their abilities were met. For Flash Frost, those conditions are that the spell it was modifying was cast with targets in the area.

That does not follow.

Being immune to detection does not mean being anyone is being affected.

If being detected is an effect that you can be protected from, I'd argue that being learned about affects you. Many divinations offer will saves for just that reason; that this spell does not offer a will save does not mean that it does not affect those creatures, as does any spell that bestows knowledge about a creature.

Incorrect, and that's a core thing you're misunderstanding.

When something just plain doesn't exist, it's not the same as having a value of "0".

See here for a common example of this: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAb...m#nonabilities

I was referencing Barkskin, but yes, there are a few examples where you're right, particularly with ability scores and +1 to existing spellcasting level. However, while there are specific instances where we are not allowed to add X to a null value, is there a rule saying that you aren't allowed to? Or has Wizards just taken care not to print things that go against what may be an implied guiding design philosophy? Because unless there is an overriding rule on null scores in general, each ability, score, feat, etc. would need an individual clause to preclude it. If not, there would be no need for those clauses in the first place. Granted, this being the only instance where there wasn't a clause definitely implies that it is an error to have omitted it, but that doesn't add the text without an errata.

Well, if you saw 50,000 Mongolian nomads riding towards you, would you call that a "city"?

If you did, you'd be wrong: it would be a nomadic horde, and your spell wouldn't detect it.

Population is insufficient.

The DMG measures cities by population size, so there's a basis for that, even if you wouldn't personally call them a city. In fact, however, both the DMG and the spell Locate City refer to communities, not cities specifically. In fact, Locate City refers to finding communities of a minimum size -- as measured by population. So regardless of whether you'd call those 50,000 Mongols a metropolis or a community, they are a valid target for Locate City

[Nifft]

Flash Frost specifies that it deals 2 extra damage to targets within the area of the spell. Both abilities don't trigger because original damage was dealt; they trigger because the conditions in their abilities were met. For Flash Frost, those conditions are that the spell it was modifying was cast with targets in the area.

Incorrect, Flash Frost Spell says that it affects targets of a spell which affects an area.

The spell must have targets and also must affect an area. Merely having an area isn't sufficient. You can see the distinction in the PHB -- it talks about how spells which affect an area have different area specifications, but AFAICT it never says that any spell with an area entry affects things in that area.

You have a converse misunderstanding of the rules for spell effect areas.

The correct rule is that spells which affect an area have limits imposed by the Area line; the existence of the Area line isn't a sufficient criteria to prove that a spell affects an area.


Furthermore, you'd need the spell's targets to be the things you had wanted to target, and in this case they're not. You fail twice on this criteria.

Locate City bombing does not work.

If being detected is an effect that you can be protected from, I'd argue that being learned about affects you. Many divinations offer will saves for just that reason; that this spell does not offer a will save does not mean that it does not affect those creatures, as does any spell that bestows knowledge about a creature.

Spells with a saving throw are legitimately different from spells without a saving throw.

Again, back to my example:

When I look out on the city, I see lots of people, but I'm not affecting them. If someone in my field of view were invisible, that person would escape detection, and I still wouldn't affect any of them.

If I were subject to an Invisibility spell, gazing out over the city would not break that effect. Casting locate city would not break that effect. Casting detect thoughts would break it -- know why? Because detect thoughts actually does affect someone, which locate city does not.

Locate City bombing does not work.

I was referencing Barkskin, but yes, there are a few examples where you're right, particularly with ability scores and +1 to existing spellcasting level.

Can you provide even a single example to the contrary, or am I right in all examples?

However, while there are specific instances where we are not allowed to add X to a null value, is there a rule saying that you aren't allowed to? Or has Wizards just taken care not to print things that go against what may be an implied guiding design philosophy?

The overriding rule is that rules allow you to do things.

If there is no rule which allows a thing, you cannot do the thing.

This is why Fighters can't cast infinite intensified fireball spells at caster level 9,001.

No rule prohibits that, but that's irrelevant because no rule is needed to prohibit things which no rule would otherwise allow.

Locate City bombing does not work, because no rule allows its constituents to work.

The DMG measures cities by population size, so there's a basis for that, even if you wouldn't personally call them a city. In fact, however, both the DMG and the spell Locate City refer to communities, not cities specifically. In fact, Locate City refers to finding communities of a minimum size -- as measured by population. So regardless of whether you'd call those 50,000 Mongols a metropolis or a community, they are a valid target for Locate City

That's certainly an opinion, but it's an incorrect opinion with hilariously bad results.

The Underdark, taken as a whole, has a population over 50k. Do you think it detects as one big city?

The continent of Faerun, taken as a whole, has a population over 50k. Do you think it detects as one big city?

The planet Toril, taken as a whole, has a population over 50k. Do you think it detects as one big city?

Unless you're missing a rather significant portion of the definition of a city -- and nudge-nudge, you are -- then all of those would detect as one big city, and the same would go for practically any setting.

When your definitions result in absurd results, it's time to re-think your definitions.

In summation, Locate City bombing does not work.

[Thunder999]

Where's the weirdly open ended and abusable unholy shroud from, because the one in Libris Mortis specifies that lesser do ghasts and greater do wraiths?

[Doctor Despair]

Incorrect, Flash Frost Spell says that it affects targets of a spell which affects an area.

The spell must have targets and also must affect an area. Merely having an area isn't sufficient. You can see the distinction in the PHB -- it talks about how spells which affect an area have different area specifications, but AFAICT it never says that any spell with an area entry affects things in that area.

You have a converse misunderstanding of the rules for spell effect areas.

The correct rule is that spells which affect an area have limits imposed by the Area line; the existence of the Area line isn't a sufficient criteria to prove that a spell affects an area.

Again, you're adopting a mindset where the rules work as you interpret and you need rules that specify they don't obey your conceptions. Locate City has a listed area that it affects. The PHB does not make the distinction between spells that affect an area and spells that have an area but no effects (on the spot, I'm having a hard time thinking of a spell that has a listed area but does not affect that area, which may be why the PHB did not make that distinction, as it seems to be a meaningless one, but it would be an enormous amount of work to prove a negative (that there is no such spell), so I'll concede that there may be a hypothetical spell printed that way), so the only way to determine whether a spell is one of those area-having-no-effects-bestowing spells (instead of just having a range) would be to determine if the spell has an effect on targets in its listed area. As I've discussed before and as I discuss below, Locate City does appear to affect targets in its listed area.

Spells with a saving throw are legitimately different from spells without a saving throw.

The absence of a saving throw does not imply that the spell does not affect things; in fact, some of the most powerful effects in DnD have no saving throw (e.g. Power Word Kill).

Again, back to my example:

When I look out on the city, I see lots of people, but I'm not affecting them. If someone in my field of view were invisible, that person would escape detection, and I still wouldn't affect any of them.

If I were subject to an Invisibility spell, gazing out over the city would not break that effect. Casting locate city would not break that effect. Casting detect thoughts would break it -- know why? Because detect thoughts actually does affect someone, which locate city does not.

The ability to break invisibility is not required to constitute affecting someone, either, but let's take your example and examine it for a moment.

Spoiler: Invisibility Excerpt

Show

The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. (Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions.) Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.

So what breaks invisibility?

• Attacks, which are a defined standard action characters can perform
• Spells that target a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe (emphasis mine)

Looking at a creature would not break the effect as a spot check is neither an attack, nor a spell which qualifies as an attack for the purposes of the spell by merit of having a target that is a foe int he area of effect.

Spells that affect an area with the cold descriptor would not break invisibility if they did not target foes or include them in their area, even though they would clearly be a valid target for flash frost.

A vanilla Locate City seems that it would break invisibility if its area or effect included a foe, depending on the caster's perceptions, regardless of whether or not you think that having divination reveal information about you is an effect.

Of course, if your character considers everyone an ally by default, casting fireball into the middle of a crowded bar would not break Invisibility, regardless of whether it deals damage, kills creatures, etc, so long as your character had a legitimate reason to cause the deaths of their allies indiscriminately (perhaps viewing that death is a better fate than being in that bar for one more moment, or somehow not knowing that fireball would cause damage to their allies, believing them all to be immune to fire damage).

This is doubly a poor example, then, both as a benchmark for determining what "affects" a creature and as a benchmark for criticizing Locate City.

Can you provide even a single example to the contrary, or am I right in all examples?

I don't need to find an example; Flash Frost Locate City can be a unique instance, but still valid by RAW. There are many unique effects in dnd.

The overriding rule is that rules allow you to do things.

If there is no rule which allows a thing, you cannot do the thing.

This is why Fighters can't cast infinite intensified fireball spells at caster level 9,001.

No rule prohibits that, but that's irrelevant because no rule is needed to prohibit things which no rule would otherwise allow.

The fact of the matter is that unless there is an overriding rule, each spell would need (and, for the most part, does seem to have) a specific clause in it to preclude adding that extra value, or in this case, damage. Flash Frost provides rules allowing you to deal extra damage to targets within the area of the cold spell. The specific text of the feat enables characters to do this, while other characters without the feat are unable to, as they do not have any rules text allowing them to perform that action. Fighters have no rules text saying they can cast infinite fireballs, so they cannot. Someone with a Snowcasted Flash-Frosted Locate City does have rules text saying they can apply the extra damage, so they can. Unless there is an overriding rule that trumps the specific text of the feat and says you cannot apply extra damage to targets within the area of the cold Locate City, Flash Frost allows you to do so where a normal character without these feats would not be able to do so. That others similar effects cannot function in a similar way does not preclude this effect from functioning in this way.

That's certainly an opinion, but it's an incorrect opinion with hilariously bad results.

The Underdark, taken as a whole, has a population over 50k. Do you think it detects as one big city?

The continent of Faerun, taken as a whole, has a population over 50k. Do you think it detects as one big city?

The planet Toril, taken as a whole, has a population over 50k. Do you think it detects as one big city?

Unless you're missing a rather significant portion of the definition of a city -- and nudge-nudge, you are -- then all of those would detect as one big city, and the same would go for practically any setting.

When your definitions result in absurd results, it's time to re-think your definitions.

First of all, nowhere in the text of Locate City or the relevant DMG community-passage are structures mentioned; you may personally believe that a community cannot exist without structures, but the rules seem to explicitly define what a community is. Locate City operates in a very specific way. Notably, it does not detect collections of buildings; it finds communities.

Spoiler: Locate City Excerpt

Show

You sense the distance and direction to the nearest community of a minimum size designated by you at the time of casting.
For instance, you could choose to find the nearest community at least as large as a village, or you could choose to locate only the nearest metropolis.

It refers to communities, which the DMG defines as: Thorps (20-80 adults, with 10% to 40% additional size due to nonadults), Hamlets (81-400), Villages (401-900), Small Towns (901-2,000), Large Towns (2,001-5,000), Small Cities (5,0001-12,000), Large Cities (12,001-25,000), and Metropolises (25,001 or more).

The text explicitly calls out there there are ranges for these communities, not just minimum values, so while a country, continent, or planet may have as many people as a metropolis, arguing such would explicitly barr the DM from having any cities, towns, villages, etc. in their setting, as there would be no people to populate these hypothetical communities. Additionally, it would imply that everyone on the planet was, indeed, in a community, to the extent that that means something, which might imply any number of things, such as global communication and/or global trade (after all, can you be said to be in a community with someone if you have no way to interact with them?). However, that RAI does not PRECLUDE a DM from calling a planet a community, as there is no listed requirement for proximity or communication, so I suppose the use of Locate City effectively requires a DM to not decide that the PCs are part of the global community.

However, let's run with that. Let's say you try to detect the nearest community as large as a Thorp and the DM gives you a sly grin and says, against all common sense, "You are 0 feet from the nearest metropolis, as the whole planet meets that criteria, hehehe." That would not actually stop this strategy from working, although the spell would not provide useful information apart from your DM's lack of judgment. The Flash Frosted Locate City would still affect the community in range (although now there's an argument to be made that it would affect the whole community, not just the parts of the community within the area, extending the effects globally). Not that this strategy would ever see the light of day, of course, as it is a TO exercise. I suppose, technically, in the face of a DM making such a ruling, you might be able to have your party explicitly renounce membership to any community, and then use the spell somewhat normally... but I digress.

I will again emphasize that if you cast that spell with no creatures within the area, however, and the DM does not take the view that the entire planet is a metropolis (when there are functional, discrete communities you are meant to use within that planet) it will fail to find any community. If you use it in the middle of 20,000 houses, clearly large enough for a city, and there are no creatures in the area, it will fail to find any community. It does not find buildings; it finds collections of creatures living in communities.

Spoiler: Flash Frost Excerpt

Show

This metamagic feat can be applied only to spells that have the cold descriptor and that affect an area. A fl ash frost spell deals an extra 2 points of cold damage per level of the spell to all targets in the area.

Locate City checks the whole area for communities of a designated size. It then reveals information about the nearest target. There's an argument to be made for whether or not the spell targets ALL communities within the area, or if just the nearest one, but regardless of the number of targets it affects, affects targets within the area of the spell. The communities (not cities, and not buildings, if you look at the spell) are the targets; it would not reveal a bunch of buildings with no creatures present and, notably, it would reveal a bunch of creatures. The creatures are the target of the spell; the area is specified in the spell; the creatures within the area are affected in that they are detected. Snowcasting grants the spell the cold descriptor. By merit of having the cold descriptor and affecting an area, it is a valid spell for Flash Frost to be applied to.

Edit:

Where's the weirdly open ended and abusable unholy shroud from, because the one in Libris Mortis specifies that lesser do ghasts and greater do wraiths?

I saw the item referenced in another Giantitp thread, which included the relevant link.

[Nifft]

Again, you're adopting a mindset where the rules work as you interpret and you need rules that specify they don't obey your conceptions.

That's rather dismissive.

Locate City has a listed area that it affects.

It has an area, but not an effect upon that area.

Much like how Darkvision has a range, but doesn't affect anything within that range.

The PHB does not make the distinction between spells that affect an area and spells that have an area but no effects (on the spot, I'm having a hard time thinking of a spell that has a listed area but does not affect that area,

Detect Animals or Plants
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area: Cone-shaped emanation

Detect Evil
Range: 60 ft.
Area: Cone-shaped emanation

Locate Object
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area: Circle, centered on you, with a radius of 400 ft. + 40 ft./level

There's a pattern here, perhaps you can divine it.

which may be why the PHB did not make that distinction, as it seems to be a meaningless one, but it would be an enormous amount of work to prove a negative (that there is no such spell)

I've saved you the trouble by proving the positive.

The ability to break invisibility is not required to constitute affecting someone, either, but let's take your example and examine it for a moment.

Spoiler: Invisibility Excerpt

Show

The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. (Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions.) Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.

So what breaks invisibility?

• Attacks, which are a defined standard action characters can perform
• Spells that target a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe (emphasis mine)

Looking at a creature would not break the effect as a spot check is neither an attack, nor a spell which qualifies as an attack for the purposes of the spell by merit of having a target that is a foe int he area of effect.

You're right about invisibility -- I had mis-remembered, or maybe got another edition's rules mixed in. Either way, thanks for the correction.

It doesn't help your case, though.

The way the invisibility is written clearly distinguishes between targets and enemies in the area of a spell.

The rules which make you right about invisibility make it clear that merely being in the area of a spell, even if you're an enemy, does not make you a target of that spell.


Hopefully this can put the locate city bomb idea to rest.

[Evoker]

EDIT: This post was based on mistaken information. Pay it no mind.

[Nifft]

A relevant quote from the online SRD:
"Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell." (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Ai...ll_Descriptor))
That would seem to indicate that Locate City can't possibly have a target of "a city" as a city is neither a creature nor an object. It also seems to mean that even if Locate City "targeted" each and every creature within a city as part of the information-gathering it conducts, you would have to see or touch each and every creature, thus defeating the point for the most part.

Cities are considered objects. Here's a relevant bit of rules from Races of Destiny:

Animate City
Transmutation
Level: City 9
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: 60 ft.
Area: 60-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you
Duration: 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

The buildings and other structures of the city attack your enemies. Every round on your turn, every enemy within the spell's area is subject to one melee attack as if from a Gargantuan animated object (slam +15 melee, 2d8+10 damage). The animated city's attacks disregard cover and concealment (even invisibility is useless).

In addition, all enemies within the area of the spell move at half normal speed (regardless of their mode of movement). Damage dealt to the animated city structures has no effect. You may cast this spell only when within a community at least as large as a small city (see page 137 of the Dungeon Master's Guide).

The attacks of the animated city don't involve any denizens of the city.

[Evoker]

Apparently that post was based on two mistakes. The most important one was that that quote applies only to spells with a "target" line rather than an "area" line.

[Nifft]

Apparently that post was based on two mistakes. The most important one was that that quote applies only to spells with a "target" line rather than an "area" line.

Ah that makes sense.

[Zanos]

Command undead combined with methods of debuffing charisma(bestow curse and it's big brother) and buffing yours can help. Otherwise I think you need to be a cleric with rebuking. Even then there's no way you're packing all the original wights into your control pool. The usual spawn-pocalypse starts with capturing a single undead with create spawn that you use as the core, so you only need to have control of that one to control the entire army.

Shroud of undeath can help you blend in. Doesn't automatically work on intelligent undead but will give a large bonus to blending in.

[Doctor Despair]

It has an area, but not an effect upon that area.

Much like how Darkvision has a range, but doesn't affect anything within that range.

Darkvision is a buff to the viewer that allows you to use spot checks to gain information; it does not directly reveal information. Locate City, like Scry, does directly reveal information. The magical collection of this information is an effect. The targets are affected in that information about them has been collected. Mind Blank, in describing the nature of its protection, offers some insight into the difference between scrying for a specific target (e.g., an object, a community, a creature, etc) or just scrying an area; direct collection of information is an effect that is protected against by the spell, and scry is clarified as a targeted spell, although it does not have a target line.

You're right about invisibility -- I had mis-remembered, or maybe got another edition's rules mixed in. Either way, thanks for the correction.

It doesn't help your case, though.

The way the invisibility is written clearly distinguishes between targets and enemies in the area of a spell.

The rules which make you right about invisibility make it clear that merely being in the area of a spell, even if you're an enemy, does not make you a target of that spell.

For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.

The rules for invisibility make clear that there is a distinction between being targeted by a spell, and being subject to or present within a spell, and that they may not all be true at once. It does not clarify that a spell with an area of effect cannot have that foe as a target, however, or in other words, that more than one cannot be true at once.

Some spells will have an area it affects, but no targets; for example, Flash Frost, added to a spell with no targets, makes the ground icy in the area of its affected spell. This is a spell that would have an area and include enemies in the effect, but would not have targets.

Some spells will have an area it affects, and targets, but will not include every foe within that effect; for example, a spell with a limited number of targets selected from anywhere in an area. This spell would have an area, targets, and effects, but would not include foes in the effect.

Locate City, directly gathering information about communities in the area, would both have an area (10 miles/level) that includes foes (if you were hostile to a creature within the range, of course), would include foes within the spell's effect (again, providing you were hostile to a creature in the community, or perhaps the community at large), and target the communities in range (having targets).

Scrying has no listed target, and never uses the word target in the spell, but has a subject it is meant to affect -- the creature you are scrying. It is clarified in Mind Blank as a targeted effect.

Locate City also has a subject it is meant to affect -- communities, or at least the nearest community within the area the spell is magically checking. The spell has an area it affects, an area, valid targets within the area, it has the cold descriptor... It has everything it needs to be a valid target for the feat.

Edit:

Another workable spell, if someone prefers to avoid Locate City, which seems to be contentious to some, would be Detect Thoughts (2) or Detect Incarnum/Evil/etc(1). Throw an Invisibility on a character, which won't break so long as the invisible character doesn't view any of the affected creatures as foes, and have them run through a dense city, maintaining concentration as a free action, leaving a trail of ice and dead 1HD creatures in their wake.

[Nifft]

Darkvision is a buff to the viewer that allows you to use spot checks to gain information; it does not directly reveal information. Locate City, like Scry, does directly reveal information. The magical collection of this information is an effect. The targets are affected in that information about them has been collected. Mind Blank, in describing the nature of its protection, offers some insight into the difference between scrying for a specific target (e.g., an object, a community, a creature, etc) or just scrying an area; direct collection of information is an effect that is protected against by the spell, and scry is clarified as a targeted spell, although it does not have a target line.

There are protections against Darkvision, too, though. Either you're wrong about Darkvision -- which isn't even limited to being a spell -- or you're wrong about "perceived" being the same as "affected".

Spoiler: It's the latter. You're trying to make a distinction where there is no such distinction.

The only effect of most information-gathering spells is in the head of the caster.

None of the other creatures in the area of most information-gathering spells are affected by having their information perceived by the caster. Only the caster (or other spell beneficiary) is affected by the information-gathering.

You want to take 2 damage and a negative level for being the only "target" which was "affected"? That might be supported. But it's not reasonable to pretend that the one person actually affected by the information-gatering is immune, while everyone who isn't affected somehow is.

The rules for invisibility make clear that there is a distinction between being targeted by a spell, and being subject to or present within a spell, and that they may not all be true at once. It does not clarify that a spell with an area of effect cannot have that foe as a target, however, or in other words, that more than one cannot be true at once.

Some spells will have an area it affects, but no targets; for example, Flash Frost, added to a spell with no targets, makes the ground icy in the area of its affected spell. This is a spell that would have an area and include enemies in the effect, but would not have targets.

Some spells will have an area it affects, and targets, but will not include every foe within that effect; for example, a spell with a limited number of targets selected from anywhere in an area. This spell would have an area, targets, and effects, but would not include foes in the effect.

Locate City, directly gathering information about communities in the area, would both have an area (10 miles/level) that includes foes (if you were hostile to a creature within the range, of course), would include foes within the spell's effect (again, providing you were hostile to a creature in the community, or perhaps the community at large), and target the communities in range (having targets).

Scrying has no listed target, and never uses the word target in the spell, but has a subject it is meant to affect -- the creature you are scrying. It is clarified in Mind Blank as a targeted effect.

Locate City also has a subject it is meant to affect -- communities, or at least the nearest community within the area the spell is magically checking. The spell has an area it affects, an area, valid targets within the area, it has the cold descriptor... It has everything it needs to be a valid target for the feat.

Edit:

Another workable spell, if someone prefers to avoid Locate City, which seems to be contentious to some, would be Detect Thoughts (2) or Detect Incarnum/Evil/etc(1). Throw an Invisibility on a character, which won't break so long as the invisible character doesn't view any of the affected creatures as foes, and have them run through a dense city, maintaining concentration as a free action, leaving a trail of ice and dead 1HD creatures in their wake.

The only affect of the information-gathering spell Locate City is information being gathered in the caster's head. The caster is the only creature affected by the spell. All other creatures in the spell's area are not targets. (The caster probably isn't a target either, but that's moot.)

If the arguments above remove Locate City from consideration -- and they should -- the same arguments probably work on all of those other spells, too.

You might remember me bringing them up as evidence that spells can have areas which aren't affected.

[Doctor Despair]

There are protections against Darkvision, too, though. Either you're wrong about Darkvision -- which isn't even limited to being a spell -- or you're wrong about "perceived" being the same as "affected".

Spoiler: It's the latter. You're trying to make a distinction where there is no such distinction.

The only effect of most information-gathering spells is in the head of the caster.

None of the other creatures in the area of most information-gathering spells are affected by having their information perceived by the caster. Only the caster (or other spell beneficiary) is affected by the information-gathering.

You want to take 2 damage and a negative level for being the only "target" which was "affected"? That might be supported. But it's not reasonable to pretend that the one person actually affected by the information-gatering is immune, while everyone who isn't affected somehow is.

That there are spells or effects that prevent a creature from being detected by spot checks made by a creature affected by or in possession of Darkvision does not mean that Darkvision isn't directly revealing information about a creature.

Darkvision enhances the subject, allowing them to make spot checks that aren't hindered by darkness. Locate City directly gathers information about its targets. There is a fundamental difference between information gathering effects - like Locate City and Scrying -- and buff effects -- like Darkvision or Truesight.

However, depending on the DM's definition of "community," the caster could end up being counted as a member of that global community, and so be subject to the damage along with all the other members within the area. However, as the character can be a Necropolitan, they would be unaffected by the negative level. Their cohort would be affected, which is a sad state of affairs, and hopefully the caster will have some way to help them recover on hand. However, if the DM does not rule that every single person on the planet is part of a global community metropolis, and is instead using discrete community units as described upthread, then the casters would not be affected.

The only affect of the information-gathering spell Locate City is information being gathered in the caster's head. The caster is the only creature affected by the spell. All other creatures in the spell's area are not targets. (The caster probably isn't a target either, but that's moot.)

If the arguments above remove Locate City from consideration -- and they should -- the same arguments probably work on all of those other spells, too.

You might remember me bringing them up as evidence that spells can have areas which aren't affected.

I'd disagree, but there's no need to discuss it in much further detail, as Locate City does work. The other spells are more specific and don't require you to dive into the DMG for keyword definitions, however, and we can discuss why that may make the argument more clear if you like, but again, they are inferior choices to Locate City as a chassis for the metamagic feats.