What's Redcloak's 2nd Level-9-Spell

[Fish]

Celia isn't necessarily expert enough to know the difference between summoning and calling. She's a lawyer...

He said summoning, in multiple locations throughout the story, such as here and here. Rich has no reason to lie to the readers and call it summoning when he means something else; it would serve no narrative purpose to lie (ie, to have Celia be wrong). Or do you think this is all part of the Giant's elaborate plot to mislead you into guessing incorrectly what Redcloak's other 9th-level spells are?

All right, then you get to explain what Celia's talisman did with only a summoning spell. Otherwise, actions speak louder than words.

I won't explain how, because I don't have to. Moreover, I can't — nobody can. Rich has explicitly said that he does not always follow the rules of D&D. If you're combing through spell lists looking at durations and casting times, you're wasting your time. It happened ... because Rich said it happened.

Otherwise ... always ... author speaks louder than rulebook.

Yes - and what you're missing is that calling spells are functionally identical to summoning ones.

Who cares about that? A airplane and a hang glider are functionally equivalent in that they get you places through the air, but they're not identical things.

Edit: Also functionally equivalent are Darkness and Obscuring Mist. Blocks all light, including infravision; 20% concealment. One is an evocation and the other a conjuration.

All of the objections so far are assuming facts not in evidence. Namely:

1. Rich didn't mean "summoning" when he said "summoning." You have to believe the author is a) wrong or b) misleading. Why not believe the author is c) right?

2. Redcloak has been there for a long time, waiting with these demons; therefore it can't be a summoning spell. We don't know how long he's been there, or whether he was waiting deliberately for their return, or when he cast his spell. Even supposing we knew all of that, then who says it can't be a summoning spell? The rulebook? See above: author speaks louder than rulebook.

3. The rulebooks contain information that is always relevant to the plot, because Rich always follows every rule to the letter. No, they don't, because no, he doesn't.

4. It can't be a spell because it's a horned demon. Says who? A kinda similar-looking stick figure? Maybe? Hardly authoritative.

Most likely the exception encompasses both. Rich almost certainly doesn't follow the rules closely enough to note the distinction.

This is the best explanation yet. Rich wanted it to work a certain way, and either didn't know (or didn't give a damn) about the difference. Bottom line: it works because he says it does; he's the author.

So within the Cloister, all of those things work just fine, you just can't use them from the outside going in. And since Redcloak is within the Cloister, that means he can use any kind of spells just fine, and it won't inhibit him in the least. Which actually means that the exception for summoning wasn't even needed to begin with, since Dorukon could cast whatever spells he wanted from within the Cloister to bring others to him ...

First: we believe it's possible to cast Gate from inside Cloister; we don't know for certain whether it's possible to use that Gate to enter the Cloister. That's why I said "the smart money is on Monster Summoning," partly because we know Redcloak has used Monster Summoning before (a lower level, but still ... and it lasts long enough for him to march his army into the city, so ... yeah, I hardly think Rich cares about spell durations here).

Second: if Dorukan can cast spells from inside the Cloister to bring in allies, so can the bad guys. It's not a loophole he'd be likely to leave, is it? In fact, if calling spells are long-term spells to summon powerful extraplanar allies, and summoning spells are short-term, that's all the more reason to leave summons as the only exception.