|
The issue is that a developer in a message board post said that we couldn't summon elementals outside of the main four. That means it applies to players and GMs alike, just like any other forum clarification.
That's not entirely true. Forum clarifications and additional resources applies to player-characters unless it specifically calls out GM/author options. NPCs often perform actions, use spells, select feats, and utilize equipment that are not available to PCs. There has never been a rule that specifically defined exactly what a GM can do with NPCs and enemies of the PCs outside of following the tactics as written unless/until the PCs invalidate them. If you check the Guide, you will find that GMs and/or authors are not referenced when discussing what is/not a legal rules option. Only player/characters are bound by such restrictions as defined by the additional resources.
Let's not make this into more than what it is. No one is saying you can do things that are not allowed by the Pathfinder RPG rules, only that they may not necessarily comply with the restrictions placed on player-characters by the additional resources. There are many examples in scenarios where NPCs utilize PC-banned materials. If a stat block provides summon monster X without tactics indicating what is summoned, it is left to the GM to decide that and a lightning elemental could be a valid option based on the reading of the RAW. AFAIK, gibbering mouthers are not listed as summonable options so no, they would not be permitted unless some alternate list exists somewhere to make them so.
|
The burden of proof is on you to counter what Mark wrote, though. His restriction is not limited to Players only. It's blanket.
Besides, if we went with "any elemental", does that mean creatures with the Elemental type? An Azer is a medium Elemental, after all.
This is the slippery slope that "RAW" creates.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One also presumes that the GMs will use a modicum of common sense. I.e., the creatures whose name is Something Elemental are the ones that are called out in the Summon Monster list, not everything with a fire, earth, air, or water subtype.
Kind of a straw man, there.
|
|
The issue is that a developer in a message board post said that we couldn't summon elementals outside of the main four. That means it applies to players and GMs alike, just like any other forum clarification.That's not entirely true. Forum clarifications and additional resources applies to player-characters unless it specifically calls out GM/author options. NPCs often perform actions, use spells, select feats, and utilize equipment that are not available to PCs. There has never been a rule that specifically defined exactly what a GM can do with NPCs and enemies of the PCs outside of following the tactics as written unless/until the PCs invalidate them. If you check the Guide, you will find that GMs and/or authors are not referenced when discussing what is/not a legal rules option. Only player/characters are bound by such restrictions as defined by the additional resources.
Let's not make this into more than what it is. No one is saying you can do things that are not allowed by the Pathfinder RPG rules, only that they may not necessarily comply with the restrictions placed on player-characters by the additional resources. There are many examples in scenarios where NPCs utilize PC-banned materials. If a stat block provides summon monster X without tactics indicating what is summoned, it is left to the GM to decide that and a lightning elemental could be a valid option based on the reading of the RAW. AFAIK, gibbering mouthers are not listed as summonable options so no, they would not be permitted unless some alternate list exists somewhere to make them so.
Agreed.
|
|
The burden of proof is on you to counter what Mark wrote, though. His restriction is not limited to Players only. It's blanket.
I disagree. Clarifications are inherently meant for players. Otherwise, authors would not be permitted to violate additional resources to use banned options.
Besides, if we went with "any elemental", does that mean creatures with the Elemental type? An Azer is a medium Elemental, after all.
No. It is relatively clear what the spell is referencing by "elemental." That refers to a creature, not a creature sub-type. No other summoned creature option is referred to by its sub-type. to say so is to invent language not consistent with the rest of the spell's function.
|
|
The burden of proof is on you to counter what Mark wrote, though. His restriction is not limited to Players only. It's blanket.I disagree. Clarifications are inherently meant for players. Otherwise, authors would not be permitted to violate additional resources to use banned options.
Besides, if we went with "any elemental", does that mean creatures with the Elemental type? An Azer is a medium Elemental, after all.No. It is relatively clear what the spell is referencing by "elemental." That refers to a creature, not a creature sub-type. No other summoned creature option is referred to by its sub-type. to say so is to invent language not consistent with the rest of the spell's function.
Again, agreed. This is getting uncomfortable. ;b
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given the fact that this is a relatively obscure restriction (only clarified in a messageboard post) and there is some disagreement over whether these restrictions only apply to players or not, I'd be very uncomfortable as a GM about telling an uninformed player that he couldn't summon the lightning elemental he wanted, then have the NPC magic-user do exactly that the next round. It just doesn't seem like fair play to me.
Until it's clarified otherwise, I'll restrict myself (as a GM) to the same list as the players.
|
The burden of proof is on you to counter what Mark wrote, though. His restriction is not limited to Players only. It's blanket.I disagree. Clarifications are inherently meant for players. Otherwise, authors would not be permitted to violate additional resources to use banned options.
Besides, if we went with "any elemental", does that mean creatures with the Elemental type? An Azer is a medium Elemental, after all.No. It is relatively clear what the spell is referencing by "elemental." That refers to a creature, not a creature sub-type. No other summoned creature option is referred to by its sub-type. to say so is to invent language not consistent with the rest of the spell's function.
The writers for PFS scenarios do have leeway to go beyond the normal restrictions. But GMs do not. They are just as shackled by the rules as anyone else.
If you are running a character who has been given an additional ability, then of course you run that ability. But if not... you can't just add abilities of your own. Just as you can't change tactics(outside of a specific, though vague in definition, situation), add creatures, change the story or rewrite game rules.
Unless you can show where you are given the power to modify how a spell works for PFS, you are stepping outside the bounds of what powers you are given as a GM for PFS. Which would be no different than a player doing the same thing.
|
|
Clarifications are inherently meant for players.
You've said this before, and my response then was that the burden of proof is on you to show your position to be correct. Restating the position does not do that.
In other words, I am aware of no such "clarification". Since you seem rather sure that one exists, you should have no problem showing it to the rest of us, correct?
|
|
Another comparative example: if clarifications are meant only for players, what's to stop the BBEG from using its wealth on hand to retrain its feats? Some of them certainly have the time available, and PP costs are just for player characters, after all. Or maybe spend the time to research an electric version of Snowball, since that's another restriction meant only for players.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In this example, one must remember that scenarios, when written go through a vetting process by one or more developers. If an author desires to have an NPC use a specialized result of a spell, such as an expanded summons (and hopefully that would show up in the tactics), the controls in place for publishing a scenario should prevent abuse of such a privilege.
There aren't such supports for table GM's, and I think that it might get out of hand if there is too much table variation. Remember, Tonya Woldridge is the Campaign Coordinator, which means the overall GM for the campaign.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given the fact that this is a relatively obscure restriction (only clarified in a messageboard post) and there is some disagreement over whether these restrictions only apply to players or not, I'd be very uncomfortable as a GM about telling an uninformed player that he couldn't summon the lightning elemental he wanted, then have the NPC magic-user do exactly that the next round. It just doesn't seem like fair play to me.
Until it's clarified otherwise, I'll restrict myself (as a GM) to the same list as the players.
1000% this.
|
|
Another comparative example: if clarifications are meant only for players, what's to stop the BBEG from using its wealth on hand to retrain its feats? Some of them certainly have the time available, and PP costs are just for player characters, after all. Or maybe spend the time to research an electric version of Snowball, since that's another restriction meant only for players.
....because there is also a clause about "run as written". Doing something to change the statblock of an NPC would violate that.
Really, you're tossing up straw man after straw man here.
|
Another comparative example: if clarifications are meant only for players, what's to stop the BBEG from using its wealth on hand to retrain its feats? Some of them certainly have the time available, and PP costs are just for player characters, after all. Or maybe spend the time to research an electric version of Snowball, since that's another restriction meant only for players.
Why can't a BBEG spend its wealth to retrain feats? Well, because the stat block shows what the BBEG has, and a GM isn't free to change it. A GM may change the BBEG's tactics under certain circumstances, as provided for in the Role-playing Guild Guide. If a creature's listed tactics say, "..so and so uses his or her summoning spells to summon a flumph" then that's what they summon; if no such restriction is listed, the GM is free to summon any creature which may be summoned by the appropriate spell.
Do elementals fall under the category of creatures which may be summoned by an NPC/BBEG? Yes. The spell simply lists "Elemental (medium)" (as one example.) It doesn't list the types of elementals that may be summoned, and certainly, none of them appear in the CRB. As a general matter, I would say that absent any other restriction, any creature which is an elemental of the appropriate size is eligible for summoning. However, Mark did issue a restriction, one which has not been changed by any other developer or member of the campaign leadership. To me, that limits the summoning to those basic elemental types. While GMs are authorized to interpret the rules of the game, they are also required to follow the rules handed down by certain individuals, and one group of those is the developers. In such a case, with a clear limitation on the part of Mark, a GM (as well as a player) is subject to that same restriction. I don't know any other way to square these two campaign rules.
|
|
In other words, I am aware of no such "clarification". Since you seem rather sure that one exists, you should have no problem showing it to the rest of us, correct?
Certainly. Its rather easy really.
Additional Resources
Paizo Publishing produces a wide range of sourcebooks that further explore the game rules and world of Pathfinder. These volumes contain a huge variety of options to help you customize your character. You can view a frequently updated list of all campaign-legal Additional Resources online at paizo.com/pathfindersociety/resources. In order to utilize content from an Additional Resource, a player must have a physical copy of the Additional Resource in question, a name-watermarked Paizo PDF of it, or a printout of the relevant pages from it, as well as a copy of the current version of the Additional Resources list. You must inform the Game Master that you plan to use Additional Resource material before play begins, so he has a chance to familiarize himself with the new material.
You will notice the word PLAYER and CHARACTER utilized in reference to whom the additional Resources applies to. No where does it list GMs or authors as being limited to the same restrictions. Additionally, no where in the GM sections does it reference the additional resources as a restricting element. In fact, the opposite is suggested.
Table Variation
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources. Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to number of monsters (unless indicated in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills, spells, stats, traits, or weapons. However, if the actions of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should consider whether changing these would provide a more enjoyable play experience.
There is a list of restrictions the GM is required to adhere to and additional resources is not one of them. An interesting omission to be sure. If you take a moment to search scenarios, you will find a number of "illegal" races, archetypes, classes, etc. being used by the author/GM against the players. Illegal referring to items listed in the additional resources as being banned.
With respect specifically to the summoning of elementals from Bestiary II-V, the text of the summon monster spells merely lists "elemental" as the selection. It does not restrict the spell to Bestiary I. In fact since the CRB was published a full month prior to the release of the Bestiary I, we cannot definitely say the reference to "elemental" in the summon list was intended solely to refer to the Bestiary I and not to all future bestiary listings that included an expanded selection of elementals. That was the crux of my argument back when Bestiary II was originally published. Only the forum post from Mark Moreland clarified the intent which did not specifically reference GM restrictions. Since the general rules for additional resource restrictions, which is what Mr Moreland clarified, do not by the Guide include GMs, we can therefore conclude that expanded elementals are in fact legal options for GMs running NPC/creatures with summoning spells.
As far as your attempts to correlate that logic with things like rebuilding and/or researching spells that are not specifically listed, well, I think the rules restrictions that are in place can answer to the illegality of those proposals.
Now, if Tonya or John, or another Paizo employee would like to weigh in on this topic and further clarify their position such that GMs are in fact bound by the additional resources, that would be fine. I am sure everyone would abide. However, in lieu of that, the logical progression of the case above shows otherwise and grants a modicum of freedom to the GM.
|
|
In other words, I am aware of no such "clarification". Since you seem rather sure that one exists, you should have no problem showing it to the rest of us, correct?Certainly. Its rather easy really.
Additional Resources
Paizo Publishing produces a wide range of sourcebooks that further explore the game rules and world of Pathfinder. These volumes contain a huge variety of options to help you customize your character. You can view a frequently updated list of all campaign-legal Additional Resources online at paizo.com/pathfindersociety/resources. In order to utilize content from an Additional Resource, a player must have a physical copy of the Additional Resource in question, a name-watermarked Paizo PDF of it, or a printout of the relevant pages from it, as well as a copy of the current version of the Additional Resources list. You must inform the Game Master that you plan to use Additional Resource material before play begins, so he has a chance to familiarize himself with the new material.You will notice the word PLAYER and CHARACTER utilized in reference to whom the additional Resources applies to. No where does it list GMs or authors as being limited to the same restrictions. Additionally, no where in the GM sections does it reference the additional resources as a restricting element. In fact, the opposite is suggested.
...Table Variation
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases
This has little to do with additional resources. This has to do with adhering to FAQs and clarifications. As a GM, you never touch the additional resources, since the resources are laid out for you. What you do have to adhere to is any rule, clarification for a rule or FAQ.
This has to do with a clarification on what is a choice for a spell which could have been open due to ambiguous writing. That writing is no longer ambiguous. The summon line of spells simply does not summon more than the core four elementals. If it did, it would be made explicitly clear that it does.In the absence of a rule saying you can summon a different monster than what is listed, you can not. Absence of a rule, in this case, does not give you leeway. This is no different than saying 'well, it's my table so summon mon can summon cthulu.' It isn't only your table, you share that distinction with PFS management.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. This has nothing to do with Additional Resources and everything to do with rulings by Campaign Leadership.
Mark Moreland ruled (twice) that only the Core Elementals may be summoned. That is all that matters to this discussion. His ruling was blanket. It was not directed solely at players.
Obviously if a statblock gives the option to summon something different, that would take precedent for that instance.
|
|
Here's another example, without the use of Additional Resources:
Half-elves are legal.
Summon Monster is legal.
Mike Brock ruled that flavoring a half-elf as a half-drow is not legal.
Mark Moreland ruled that only Core Elementals are legal.
GMs are not allowed to flavor NPC half-elves as half-drow.
GMs are not allowed to summon Lightning Elementals.
A scenario has a dark-skinned half-elf with white hair.
A scenario's tactics lists summoning a Lightning Elemental.
For that scenario, a GM may run a half-drow NPC.
For that scenario, a GM may summon Lightning Elementals.
In all other instances, half-drow flavoring is not allowed.
In all other instances, Lightning Elementals are not allowed.
|
|
Mike's ruling on no reskinning as drow was in the context that drow are an inherently evil race, and he didn't want PCs to sort of game the system and get the benefits of even being perceived as drow. (I'm paraphrasing based upon my recollection.) As such, I don't think your example is valid here (inasmuch as Mike's context related to players, as I recall.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bob, Mark, Andy: a question.
In scenarios with NPC's that can summon, have you ever actually had them summon non-standard elementals (in this case non-standard meaning not from Bestiary 1)? Would you? Is this entire tizzy that people are having entirely academic, is this an argument over nothing?
|
|
Bob, Mark, Andy: a question.
In scenarios with NPC's that can summon, have you ever actually had them summon non-standard elementals (in this case non-standard meaning not from Bestiary 1)? Would you? Is this entire tizzy that people are having entirely academic, is this an argument over nothing?
I'm not too heavily invested in this topic, really (apparently, I missed the more heated or pointed parts), but at this point, it seems an academic exercise in regards to what the GM may or may not summon (I don't think I have run into a scenario yet where an NPC summons a non-standard elemental.)
|
|
I'm not too heavily invested in this topic, really (apparently, I missed the more heated or pointed parts), but at this point, it seems an academic exercise in regards to what the GM may or may not summon (I don't think I have run into a scenario yet where an NPC summons a non-standard elemental.)Bob, Mark, Andy: a question.
In scenarios with NPC's that can summon, have you ever actually had them summon non-standard elementals (in this case non-standard meaning not from Bestiary 1)? Would you? Is this entire tizzy that people are having entirely academic, is this an argument over nothing?
If I can run with this a bit, is summoning non-standard elementals something you would have an NPC do, if the tactics didn't tell you to but allowed some leeway (like if an NPC has summon spells and the PC's invalidate the tactics)? Would you do it if you had to tell a PC they were restricted to Bestiary 1 elementals for summoning earlier in the scenario?
|
|
Here's another example, without the use of Additional Resources:
Half-elves are legal.
Summon Monster is legal.Mike Brock ruled that flavoring a half-elf as a half-drow is not legal.
Mark Moreland ruled that only Core Elementals are legal.GMs are not allowed to flavor NPC half-elves as half-drow.
GMs are not allowed to summon Lightning Elementals.A scenario has a dark-skinned half-elf with white hair.
A scenario's tactics lists summoning a Lightning Elemental.For that scenario, a GM may run a half-drow NPC.
For that scenario, a GM may summon Lightning Elementals.In all other instances, half-drow flavoring is not allowed.
In all other instances, Lightning Elementals are not allowed.
Dark-skinned, white-haired elves and half-elves allowed, but they have to be Ekuaje, not drow.
|
|
In scenarios with NPC's that can summon, have you ever actually had them summon non-standard elementals (in this case non-standard meaning not from Bestiary 1)?
Yes
Would you?
Yes
Is this entire tizzy that people are having entirely academic, is this an argument over nothing?
The eight-ball says, "unclear, try again later" ;-)
is summoning non-standard elementals something you would have an NPC do, if the tactics didn't tell you to but allowed some leeway (like if an NPC has summon spells and the PC's invalidate the tactics)?
Yes
Would you do it if you had to tell a PC they were restricted to Bestiary 1 elementals for summoning earlier in the scenario?
Yes
|
|
If I can run with this a bit, is summoning non-standard elementals something you would have an NPC do, if the tactics didn't tell you to but allowed some leeway (like if an NPC has summon spells and the PC's invalidate the tactics)? Would you do it if you had to tell a PC they were restricted to Bestiary 1 elementals for summoning earlier in the scenario?I'm not too heavily invested in this topic, really (apparently, I missed the more heated or pointed parts), but at this point, it seems an academic exercise in regards to what the GM may or may not summon (I don't think I have run into a scenario yet where an NPC summons a non-standard elemental.)Bob, Mark, Andy: a question.
In scenarios with NPC's that can summon, have you ever actually had them summon non-standard elementals (in this case non-standard meaning not from Bestiary 1)? Would you? Is this entire tizzy that people are having entirely academic, is this an argument over nothing?
Would I? Unlikely, but I'd never say no. As I mentioned upthread, I think Mark Moreland's previous comments are pretty clear on this. So, I'd say it would be unlikely (and, frankly, I tend to avoid using summoning spells anyway unless the tactics specifically call for them or it's a case where not doing it would be senseless, say with an NPC summoner.)
Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’ll reaffirm what Mark Moreland—at the time the developer of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign—stated: The elemental entries in the summon monster and summon nature’s ally spells refer only to the air, earth, fire, and water elementals that appear on pages 120–127 of Pathfinder RPG Bestiary. Barring a later boon or exception on the Additional Resources page, the other types of elemental (e.g. those in Bestiary 2 and Bestiary 5) are not legal options to summon.
This is in large part because any increase to the summon monster lists represents a considerable expansion of those spells’ power by way of added versatility. Likewise, it’s important that GMs not employ these other elementals when an NPC uses summon monster. We’ll make a special effort to call out any situations in which an NPC could summon an alternate creature.
Yes, even gibbering mouthers.
|
Developer
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’ll reaffirm what Mark Moreland—at the time the developer of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign—stated: The elemental entries in the summon monster and summon nature’s ally spells refer only to the air, earth, fire, and water elementals that appear on pages 120–127 of Pathfinder RPG Bestiary. Barring a later boon or exception on the Additional Resources page, the other types of elemental (e.g. those in Bestiary 2 and Bestiary 5) are not legal options to summon.
This is in large part because any increase to the summon monster lists represents a considerable expansion of those spells’ power by way of added versatility. Likewise, it’s important that GMs not employ these other elementals when an NPC uses summon monster. We’ll make a special effort to call out any situations in which an NPC could summon an alternate creature.
Yes, even gibbering mouthers.
Why didn't I think to say that?!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why didn't I think to say that?!I’ll reaffirm what Mark Moreland—at the time the developer of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign—stated: The elemental entries in the summon monster and summon nature’s ally spells refer only to the air, earth, fire, and water elementals that appear on pages 120–127 of Pathfinder RPG Bestiary. Barring a later boon or exception on the Additional Resources page, the other types of elemental (e.g. those in Bestiary 2 and Bestiary 5) are not legal options to summon.
This is in large part because any increase to the summon monster lists represents a considerable expansion of those spells’ power by way of added versatility. Likewise, it’s important that GMs not employ these other elementals when an NPC uses summon monster. We’ll make a special effort to call out any situations in which an NPC could summon an alternate creature.
Yes, even gibbering mouthers.
...I see what you did there.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
@Jon is it legal to use alternative summon for cleric of a deity ?
Like a Cleric of Rovagug summoning Gibbering Mouthers or a cleric of Asmodeus summoning Cerberi ?
In this thread Mark Moreland, Campaign Coordinator at the time, says it is legal, but only for Clerics.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
